Datasets:

Siki-77

/

Sub_test_diff_length

like 0

Two movies: "the fifth element", "armageddon". The same subject: to save the world. The same main actor: Bruce Willis. One difference: "Armageddon" is very inferior to Luc Besson's film. Some spectacular special effects don't succeed in hiding a labored and globally conventional screenplay. Several parts of the movie are showing it. I think about the president's speech and especially Willis' relationship with his daughter, "Grace". At the beginning of the movie, he tends to neglect and overprotect her and this makes her weary. Then, at the end of the movie, it's true love and understanding that shine in him. On another hand, the movie falls in the following trap: Michael Bay takes his subject too seriously. Of course, the movie tries to be funny but the result doesn't work as the humor introduced in the movie is often crude and pretty low-level whereas in the "fifth element", the humor was zany, involuntary and enabled to overlook the serious side of the action. The movie suffers from two other handicaps: it often falls into the ridiculous (the Russian astronaut) and almost all the actors are bad used. Bruce Willis is all the contrary of his "fifth element"'s character. He plays the he-man, he hams it up and sometimes, he's unbearable. The other actors are barely credible in their own roles, particularly, Willis' sinking crew. It seems that this crew is here just for having fun. One of them is taken for being very qualified but he looks like a fool. And poor Liv Tyler! She's at the NASA just to be decorative.<br /><br />When the movie was released in France in August 1998, Bruce Willis expressed is weariness of saving the world. His weariness was probably justified by this spectacular but poor movie.

I watched this movie about six years ago and I recently did so again. If I remember correctly I did not like it at all the first time and I appreciated it slightly more this second time.<br /><br />This movie is obviously on a big budget. The effects are mostly top notch (except for one or two "impacts") and the cast is impressive. However, there are some elements that destroy the overall impression of the show.<br /><br />Firstly, whoever decided that Peter Stormare should act as a crazy Russian astronaut should be fired. Being a Swede and a fan of Peter, I'm pretty sure he can play a Russian character well. But his performance in this case is plain stupid, both with respect the lines uttered and the acting. So... something must be wrong with the script. I'd like to see Peter as a professional Russian astronaut instead.<br /><br />Secondly, the action scenes that take place on the surface are so intense that it is nearly unbearable to watch. It is a total chaos that lasts over thirty minutes with too few moments to catch one's breath. In addition to this, the events that unfold are simply not credible. I'd like to see a much more sensible and stripped down version of this part of the movie.<br /><br />Finally, the scenes that involve flying space shuttles are too action-biased. The shuttles are maneuvering like if they were a couple of MIGs, at zero safety distance, while bouncing off car-sized ice blocks like ping-pong balls. The director should watch Apollo 13 to learn the limitations of spacecraft like these.<br /><br />I like the music score because it is dramatic to a degree making it very touching. The overall performance of the actors is great. Apart from the things mentioned above the story is interesting and quite easy to follow.<br /><br />With some minor changes this would have been a 8/10 movie. I'm sorry it isn't!

Pretty bad. This film about a grizzled(and frankly rock stupid) old prospector and his dog'Shep' i.e., Lassie, as well as an annoying kid whose name I can't recall at the moment. At the beginning of the movie, the old prospector has DELIBERATELY buried himself in some sand so that the poor dog will have to dig him out. Why? Did he hate the dog? Anyhoo, somehow or other this idiot has managed to strike gold, and goes to tell his partner. But the man has died, and his sleazy other partner is happy to assist old Jonathan in digging up the gold. The geezer tries to leave is dog with the dead guy's son, but not even the retarded mutt wants to stay with this kid. There's quaint old preacher(for quaint read smelly), and the oily guy finished off the old guy(surprise, surprise) and tries to steal all the gold. Plus he poisons the dog and tries to kill the kid, too. So I suppose its okay that a devilish and crazy Lassie..err...SHEP does this the guy in at the end, although its pretty disturbing in what is basically a children's movie. There are extremely stereotypical(to the point of racial slur) 'Native Americans' who speak without using verbs(as in, Me Make Camp Fire type speech). And that's pretty much the extent of the cast, because apparently Lassie's salary was too big for them to hire anyone else. Kind of dull. not very interesting, and a tad too dark. Not a great movie in any way.

Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.

Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!<br /><br />Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.<br /><br />The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies.

Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..

This movie has been advertised for over three months in Greece as the biggest Greek production ever. Well, it could be, but... When you hear of a big production you expect to see something new, something different. What you get to watch here is a movie with no reason of existence. George Corraface looks like he didn't really enjoy making this movie. His acting is so simplistic, that looks almost amateur. The sound, especially when some of the Turkish actors speak English (dubbed?), is full of hiss. The, thankfully few, special effects showing Istanbul and Athens in the late 50's and early 70's are more like digital paintings than computer graphics. Finally, we see the same boy from 1959 (age 5) up to 1968 (age 14), but in a miraculous way he becomes a teenager five years later.<br /><br />So much for "the biggest Greek production". At least one would think that there would be some kind of interesting script to qualify for such an expensive production. And all one gets is a love story between 7 year-olds, who meet again 40 years later. Oh, there is a political side, too. A couple of ironic remarks about the Greek "junta" of '67-'74, so childish that seem almost forced.<br /><br />There are, of course a couple of good things in the movie: most of the actors are great, mainly Ieroklis Michaelidis, the very good scenery and the magnificent music by Evanthia Remboutsika; but they are so few for such an expensive production.<br /><br />Bottom-line: Is it so bad a movie? To tell the truth I don't know. I just know that in no point does it justify its huge (for Greek standards) budget.

I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect – a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less – it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.

History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to "the decline of the American Empire", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.<br /><br />So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.<br /><br />But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

I'd never walked out of a movie before this one. I'd entertained the idea a couple of times, but this time I did it, snuck in to see the end of another movie, but had to come back and see the end of the Rage while I waited for my friends. They told me I didn't miss much while I was gone, either. I was generally offended by the entire movie, in such a grand way that I can't even describe it. My gut instinct told me to get myself out of the theatre. It was a visceral reaction to a horrible movie. The plot centered around the cruel actions of some reprehensible teenagers against vulnerable and troubled others. There was no ray of light, no resonsible or likeable person to provide contrast. I found that even the "good guys" of the movie did nothing for me, were silly, stupid, whiney, or just plain ineffectual.<br /><br />The repetitious, graphic suicide imagery was way overdone, unnecessary, and disgusting. (Not in a "I'm easily grossed out" way, but more in the portrayal of disregard for humanity way). And besides the repetition of that scene, in slow motion, from so many angles, the other visual aspects, (interesting camera work, etc) had potential, but just became annoying sometimes. I am a person who loves movies and tries to find good things about them. Usually I can find some good things to counterbalance the not-so-good of any movie. I'm not saying that this movie had nothing good, but I am saying that, whatever that may have been, I can't remember it with all the other crap that drove me mad. I'm really sorry about that, too. Maybe the best parts were the clips from the classic original.

Would you be surprised if I told you this movie deals with a conspiracy? No? How about if I told you the ringleader was a shadow puppet. What? You don't believe me? ... OK. Yes, I made that up. It's too bad, this movie could have used a sense of humor. I understand Charlie Sheen doing this at the time - another movie equaled more money - as for Donald Sutherland and Linda Hamilton ... why? Don't even get me started on Stephen Lang. He was so much fun as the Party Crasher in 'The Hard Way' and now this junk.<br /><br />Ah no matter. Everyone involved should feel ashamed. If you aim to make a bad movie and succeed - it's twisted - but I seriously doubt that was what they were aiming for here. Flat out, the story stinks and we're actually supposed to take this yak seriously. Makes you wonder if this movie even had a glimmer of hope. Seriously, I doubt it and in an industry so tight with the purse strings how this got green lit in the first place is beyond me. Maybe even more scary is how this dog pile made it's way to theaters!?<br /><br />Oh ... Sam Waterson, how great you are in Law & Order. Why are you here? Demoting yourself to the role of the President of the United States who might I add gets to be shot at by a remote control biplane controlled by the gonzo assassin. Then again this is a masterpiece of work from George P. Cosmatos who's "directing" credits include Rambo: First Blood Part II amongst other gems. Hmm.... case in point?

I clicked onto the Encore Mystery channel to wait for the movie I wanted to see, Island of Dr. Moreau. I caught only a few minutes of Shadow Conspiracy. An old man runs to meet Charlie and grabs him by the arm. Suddenly, an Assassin in a bright rain coat taps the old man in the head (with a side arm) from across the street. After waiting for "C" to turn around and look, the "A" tries to shoot "C" and clearly misses. "C" was a much easier target, the old man couldn't have run far. Duh! There is a chase and "C" is on an elevator "A" is on the roof, so he tries to shoot the cable, which is parallel to the "A". He hits and severs the cable, impossible. Later, this time with a specialized rifle, the "A" lines up on "C" from maybe 50 meters, but is to stupid to notice a motorcycle coming up and taps the rider instead. How does Charlie get his parts? Does Daddy go to the producers and say "Look, my kid needs work..." It reminds me of his stupid Sit - Com. All the actors are good except, yup ... you got it. I usually have to endue 2 or 3 minutes of that waiting for C.S.I. to come on. Let's see, what can I do for the next hour. I know, I'll trim my toenails! Much better use of my time.

This is said to be the first Polish western and is written and directed by Piotr Uklanski. Known in the U.S. as DEAD MAN'S BOUNTY, this film uses some strange visuals to tell a story that is short on dialog. Val Kilmer plays a corpse and some scenes are through his dead eyes. Some awkward visual situations are actually comical in a sick way. My favorite is a young man building a gallows chops off one of his own fingers and actually hangs himself testing the strength of the rope. A cowboy known only as 'the stranger'(Karel Roden)finds a dead man(Kilmer) that he thinks is a wanted man. He takes him to the nearest town to collect the bounty. He ends up losing the corpse and the potential bounty in a gambling game with the town's drunken sheriff(Boguslaw Linda)and has the few townsmen turned against him when he has a dalliance with the barmaid(Katarzyna Figura). He manages to escape sure death and leads the small posse on a dangerous 'wild goose chase'. One scene has the stranger tending to a scalp wound by cauterizing with gunpowder and a match. The corpse rots chained to a hitching post as the sheriff finds out that there is no bounty to be had. This movie also known as SUMMER LOVE has a haunting theme song sung by John Davidson. Nevertheless this western is like watching a train wreck. There is just something that tells you not to look...but you do.

With No Dead Heroes you get stupid lines like that as this woefully abysmal action flick needs to be seen to be believed. William Sanders is saved by his buddy Harry Cotter during an extraction in Vietnam but gets himself captured by the enemy. Fast forward ten years and Harry is now a brainwashed Russian operative with a mind control microchip implanted in his brain. His new Russian superior is Ivan played to the obscene hilt by Nick Nicholson who might I add not only doesn't attempt once to speak with a Russian accent but resembles more a gas station attendant in Kentucky with his stained teeth. What is even more absurd is the fact that he was also the dialog coach for this film. Soon William is re-recruited by the CIA to hunt Harry down. He teams up with Barbara, a freedom fighter who has infiltrated Ivan's El Salvador camp and soon the both of them are blowing up half of South America. Some scenes are so jaw droppingly awful that it's a wonder why this film doesn't have more of a cult following. One such scene is the sudden lovemaking in the jungle by William and Barbara accompanied by the most inappropriate catterwalling background music I've ever heard. Who would strip completely nude in the middle of a South American jungle? There is a rape scene that uses the end theme from Blood on Satan's Claw as well. No Dead Heroes is the magic bullet movie champion of all time as one shot leads to multiple kills. In one scene Harry strafes his rifle from behind a rock and kills seven guys. I had to rewind it and count. Hard to find film that has recently gotten the full HD treatment by MGM. Track this movie down and watch it for the sheer silliness that ensues.

When I first saw this movie, I said to myself, "Hey what the heck it sounds like a good movie, why not rent it?". So yeah, I rented it and went back home to see it. When I inserted it in my DVD player I was shocked.<br /><br />Well FIRST of all, no one told me it was a Mexican movie and was spoken in Spanish, good thing it had subtitles.<br /><br />SECOND, it was nude, nude NUDE! Since I have no background whatsoever in Mexican movies, you could see my shock when I saw it. *GASP! Covering virgin eyes, NOO*<br /><br />THIRD, predictable to say the least, but actually being it predictable was no excuse to me in liking movies, because I don't seem to care if it's predictable, unless it's way over the top. <br /><br />FOURTH, how Heidi and Kike were reunited, so cheesy. <br /><br />FIFTH, how the movie ended. It was a BAD, BAD ending. How Mr. Van der Linde's sudden approval to the mayor's election was because her daughter, knew how to throw the party... BLAH, Blah. I was hoping that he wasn't that easy to accept it, the director might have just rushed it. <br /><br />After all of this bashing of the bad stuff, the good stuff's are here to come. The movie was actually quite hilarious at some point with Maribel being clumsy in the kitchen and all, Heidi's attitude, Valentina being poetic with words. What I really also like about it was the song that Valentina made with her girl friend. That's all, and for the other stuffs that I haven't mentioned they were just so-so.

While it's one of two movies on Tales of Voodoo Volume 1, there's no voodoo or anything supernatural in it! The box labels it "Hell Hole" but the screen title is Escape from Hell Hole. The title is confusingly similar to Hell Hole (1978) aka "Escape from Women's Hell Hole" A group of women bathe in a river and seemingly the worst thing they have to worry about is a peeping tom, who they easily overpower. No nudity in this or any other scene, however.<br /><br />A woman named Cardena drives up in a car and seems to be known and liked by all the women. She invites Indri to come and live in the city with her and her uncle M.G. Once they get there, it becomes clear that M.G. wants to take Indri's virginity. M.G. runs some sort of house of prostitution, and he's either in charge of a corrupt branch of the military, or runs a paramilitary outfit, or prefers for his guards to all wear military-style uniforms.<br /><br />The women who refuse him or otherwise make trouble get put into a prison. Indri gets sent there. The women get tortured and sometimes possibly raped by the guards.<br /><br />Various unsuccessful attempts at escape or rescue are made, but inevitably fail despite the obvious advantages the women have: they outnumber the guards vastly, and relatively few of the guards have automatic weapons - most have semi-automatic rifles or handguns.<br /><br />WIP genre enthusiasts may like it, and the fact that it was made in the Philippines gives it some novelty, but otherwise... eh.

With the plethora of repetitive and derivative sitcoms jamming fall, summer, winter and spring line-ups, it's nice to see a show that sets itself from the lot in more than one area. <br /><br />'Earl' takes an unusual approach. It's not about the "daily musings of an eccentric family" (zzzz..) nor about the other boring stuff you see everywhere in sitcoms. The show is about this small-time white trash thief (Earl) who scratches off a lottery card and scores big time. Right at that moment, 'Karma' took it away from him. Overtime, he learns that that unusual incident was probably because of all the bad things he's been doing, so he sets off on a mission to right every wrong he ever did and he's got all his deeds on a paper.<br /><br />This is a brilliant premise for a sitcom. Thankfully, it landed in the right hands. The execution of the show produces extremely satisfactory results: you get an innovative comedy that is genuinely funny and really touching at many times. You can't help but fall in love with Earl's sincerity and steadfastness, Randy's simple mind, good heart and observations on life, Joy's wild, flamboyant personality and Darnell's mellow, chillin' demeanor that really endears him to you very easily.<br /><br />When you combine the show's innovation with its genuine humor, good heart, interesting characters and well-written dialogue, you really have a keeper. With shows like this (and the incomparable "The Office"), NBC is obviously on to something. Did they finally free a cubicle or two for quality assurance? Let's hope so. And let's hope for more quality shows like these will occupy the line-ups; shows that'll make both us TV viewers and NBC executives stop crying over the long gone days of NBC's golden days (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends)

After I couldn't ignore the hype about the show, I started watching season one and it struck me as really good and I was hooked.... for about 5 episodes, then it started to spiral downwards. Why? First, Ethan Suplee is scripted to act as a complete idiot confirming that very obviously by spewing out semi-random stuff in great expectations of it somehow becoming the next best joke.<br /><br />Jaime Pressly's got stunning looks, but if she thinks stretching lips to explore parts of the face to which they normally never go to and making strange grimaces to accentuate everything she says is hilarious, she's way off track. Maybe she thought her character would be too flat, faded and she wanted to make it colorful and spicy, but made a flood of colors, overkill of spices and screams out loud for attention and it hurts my eyes, ears and intellect.<br /><br />I really, really wanted to love this show, like I said, the premise is great, (comes from the same shelf as The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain) and Jason Lee is doing a pretty good job here, along with some of the other actors but there is no way no how I would get 'sucked in' and forget that this is just a show, because Pressly's and Suplee's surreal, extreme characters abruptly wake me when they show up. It's worth to note that their characters and acting would be fine if this wasn't a 70 something-part series and if they didn't get that much screen time.

It seems like people are attracted to shows that showcase pathetic lives that have no purpose what-so-ever. To me i give my sincerity to NBC for their dire efforts to make new changes in television, making laugh track free shows. They seem to always find big success, like The Office. When I first started to watch it seemed to me that it could have potential to be a smash hit. But after a couple of episodes, I really felt like going to church and donating every penny in my entire bank to pathetic people showcased in these lowlife, poor, disgraceful areas. And the end where they show Earl and the brother in bed together, it just seems to me that this show is trying to show the bad side of life, like street beggars or people who struggle to pay the rent and have no sense of what the real world of normal people in society are like. I just seem to always be disgusted when I watch the filth the people in this show live in. It's like Venice Beach in California, beautiful but so many hobos. Believe me I'm no rich guy, middle class, and not a clean freak either, a bit sloppy, but it just seems to me that the show just can't seem to get off of all the gruesome, schmuck people out there who have one leg. I just wish that they would show a little more class, not all filth and poorness and trailers and just below average life, it just seems to depress me. To me this show is nothing more than a showcase of what not to do in life, what not to be. It also shows me that education is the most important thing you can have because apparently these two don't have an ounce of smarts. This is a schmuck-u-mentary.

I have to say that this movie was not what i expected. Even though i have not read the book the fact that plants can one bait and then wait for a killing to happen only to have it drag off a corpse for lunch is about the worst scenario anyone has come up with. With the title ruins you would think that out of 3000 years that some kind of deity or ancient animal or god would be the culprit. This is like another movie primeval where you would think it was something strange that villagers fear the most, but not a crocodile. Either way this film was like that, it entices you to think about ruins of Mayan or Inca folklore resulting in awakening and old god or the people had another agenda for sacrifice or something to that effect. But plants?.... come on, is there nothing else producers can come up with to wow a crowd?. As for this movie it will hit the 'b' list in no time. I have to say that some of the gore was excellent to see, but it didn't make up for the rest of the film. And a plant mimicking a cell phone sound or peoples voices is just too much to be believed. I am a fan of horror films but i am not a stereo typed fan who relies on just gore or mechanical effects. I do rely on great suspense and whats the next scene going to bring for more suspense. The thing had a better story line than this did. Even the ring had me jumping for more, but the ruins is just that..... ruined for using a plant to coax victims into killing or be killed by the villagers. The premise was alright for the villagers to keep it at bay with salt and such but still a simple blow torch and lots of napalm can easily do the trick to end those pesky plants with a flesh eating disorder.

I've watched a number of Wixel Pixel and Sub Rosa Extreme movies lately, and have found a lot to like about them.<br /><br />This SRE movie seemed a lot more slight than all the others I've seen. Perhaps that's because this is a comedy/horror movie rather than straight horror, and perhaps it's also because the humor didn't register with me very well.<br /><br />It's a little less than seventy minutes long, and the credits begin as the last ten minutes are beginning. There are some outtakes, goofs, and behind the scenes stuff going on while those credits roll.<br /><br />SRE movies do tend to be short, and tend to feel padded out in spite of that. This is no exception, with some scenes that tend to go on too long.<br /><br />The story involves a poor kid in Christmastown, California who'd been picked on by all his classmates. He'd had one shoe stolen, and unable to replace it, he was dubbed "Oneshoe McGroo." Due to an obsession with pirates, his parents gave him an eyepatch for Christmas with a Christmas tree emblazoned on the eyepatch.<br /><br />Many of the classmates are killed, and the few who remain gather together to decide what to do. They're picked off one by one by McGroo, who stalks around to the sound of sleigh bells ringing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty much all broad stereotypes, like the nerd named Dorkus, etc. There's an odd scene in which a kinky couple has sex; the woman is handcuffed and blindfolded, the man wears a large paper watermelon slice over his head. This reminded me of some of the stranger sex scenes from director Rinse Dream.<br /><br />The picture quality is good, and there are a lot of extras. But basically a pretty silly movie.<br /><br />Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Christmas horror movies. Still, there are a lot of other needy holidays.

Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.<br /><br />Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.<br /><br />Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in "Marianne" (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.<br /><br />Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- "Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies" (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that "one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents." Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).<br /><br />Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.<br /><br />And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great "Citizen Kane," she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.<br /><br />But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the "Susan Alexander" facsimile of the real article.<br /><br />Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.

If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.<br /><br />The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.<br /><br />Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.<br /><br />On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.<br /><br />The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.<br /><br />The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.

I really, really don't understand how that movie could get a rating bigger than 4 here on IMDb. It's simply a huge mess, and I have to admit that I actually liked AvP 1: Close to no story, okay, I can live with that, but at least they got to the point pretty much at once. AvP 2 does not. After the stupid premise has been presented there is well over half an hour of stupid and unfitting teenager clichés, dumb as hell dialog and close to nothing else, except for a few Alien scenes that feel like an excuse to have that first half of the movie and Predator scenes that make you ask yourself whether those guys making the film even watched any other Predator movie or just didn't care enough to be bothered.<br /><br />After that, that crap-fest finally gets to the point where the Predator starts attacking the Aliens, or at least pretends doing so. And boy, is that Predator stupid, blind and deaf. It's awful. How he even managed to earn that stuff he has is beyond me. He misses with almost every shot, only notices Aliens when they're right in his face or if it's absolutely necessary for the script, so that he can move where he has to be. He even gets caught on surprise by puny human teenagers and deputies all of the time. What's that guy supposed to be? After the first hour of that abomination I was more or less constantly shaking my head at every scene. Close to no scene in this movie passes by without unbelievably stupid dialogs, stupid Predator actions or stupid lack there-of or stupid actions from our "heroes".<br /><br />Then, that thing finally ended. To my surprise not only me and my friends didn't know whether to laugh or to cry, but everybody I overheard leaving the room was half-crying, half-laughing about those 1 1/2 hours they just wasted.<br /><br />Don't watch. Never.

I was only fourteen when I first saw the Alien movies and I immediately came to like it. Original, terrifying and classic. Sigourney Weaver was the perfect choice for the female hero character and she would have deserved a statuette for her act. In 1979 something everlasting was born than the immortal series continued with a nothing less legendary movie than the first. Alien3 was a different point of view but I think this part was the most stressful and unique of all, this was my favourite. Unfortunately the last one was a failure in many ways. It was strained, illogical with full of meaningless massacres. I didn't like it at all, but I never thought that a worse part would ever be made in the future. Well as it turned out in 2004 I was wrong. Alien vs. Predator was a bad break, and it should have been directed by a more talented director or should have never been made at all. But when I saw Alien vs Predator Requiem I was totally shocked moreover devastated. When I sat down and decided to watch it with full of doubt, even than I had never thought that such a bad movie could be made. Without a screenplay, without a director and without actors I don't understand how can a film be made. Because this film misses these three terms. What you get is a nice massacre show without a story but with a lot of annoying and boring dialogues. Waste of money and waste of time. This movie is rather impudence, than honor to the fans of the both sides (Alien/Predator). Shame!

When I first became a father about 5.5 years ago, I was prepared for many of the sacrifices I'd have to make. I knew I'd have to change diapers and take them to swimming lessons and attend many a freezing Santa Claus parade, but I wasn't ready for the kind of sacrifice I made last night. This, in my humble opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />Underdog is bad. It's not quite Karate Dog bad, but it makes The Shaggy Dog feel like Pulp Fiction. If Underdog were a television show, I'd recommend flipping on by. Not even the presence of Puddy and the voice of Banky Edwards can save it. Bow. Wow.<br /><br />It was also just about the best 80 minutes I've ever enjoyed. James was seated to the right of me and Michelle to the left, and I spent more time watching their reaction to this talking, flying mutt than watching the screen. At 5 and 3 years old, they were the target audience, and this movie nailed the target. There's a scene where Underdog belches loudly in another dogs face and Michelle thought it was the funniest scene ever captured on film. When Underdog was flying into outer space, James was literally at the edge of his seat, mesmerized. The kids absolutely loved Underdog, and that's why I was there. That's what last night was all about.<br /><br />Unless you're accompanying someone under the age of ten, you have no business wasting a second of your life watching this brutal film. But if you are looking to kill 80 minutes with your four year old, I won't judge. I had a blast.

Let me start of by saying that I never wanted to see this movie in the first place; I had to watch it one day, and I figured that I guess I can lighten up and enjoy it for what it is, and it might turn out to be entertaining. What I got going in with that expectation was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, bar none. First of all, there was nothing humorous in the least bit. The creators expected humor to be laughable/passable if they include sarcasm in every line that comes out of Underdog's mouth and use scene after scene of bland, played out aspects to "charm" the audiences light-hearted side, while still making them "ooh" and "ah" for more with boring action scenes and insipid, lackluster performances that made me want to yell at everyone in the audience that was enjoying it. The acting was dull, the humor was tedious and the characters/plot felt like they spent about 10 minutes creating their entire personalities which gave the uninspiring actors/actresses no range on how to portray their characters with the least bit of depth. This movie is plain and simply awful in every field and really only kids under the age of 10 will be able to enjoy it, which even though that's what age range it was aimed at, that does not excuse it for being so poorly daft and causing me to feel so penitent. Parents, spend your money on Up, Wall-E, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Water Horse or Hotel for Dogs for the best, recent family/kids flicks, or even Alvin and the Chipmunks is better than this filth!

God, I never felt so insulted in my whole life than with this crap. There are so many ways to describe this piece of crap, that I think that if I said everything that came to mind, I would get banned by this site.<br /><br />How do I begin? Well, for one, it doesn't take knowledge of the original series to know that this movie is a slap to the face of people who've seen it. The biggest butchering of a theme song ever made is here, from a metal version, to a freaking RAP VERSION, what were they thinking? How does Underdog and a electronic-heavy musical style match? The story is so basic, that I will do something I don't usually do and not even give a summary. Just think this: A dog gets superpowers, fill in the rest. That's how predictable this movie is. And then comes the jokes....please kill me now. This style of humor that might not even get the kids laughing, it's that bad, well, expect that punch line after the sneezing. That was slightly funny.<br /><br />But what surprises me the most is why Jason Lee(Ny Name Is Earl), Patrick Warburton(Emperor's New Groove), and Jim Belushi(According to Jim) are all here. In the shows/movies I mentioned, the actors, in my opinion, do a good job, and, excluding Lee, are the best actors in this movie, but that says very little. The rest deserve Golden Rasberry nominations for this crap. I am very sad to see such good actors buried by this disaster.<br /><br />All in all, this is just as bad as Doogal, which I reviewed as well, and again, my head would explode if I saw anything worse than this.

Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.<br /><br />Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.<br /><br />Cliché after cliché three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.<br /><br />John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.<br /><br />The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.<br /><br />I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.<br /><br />But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects.

it's embarrassing I had like 3 minutes on my way to a job to stop at the video store and it was 2 for 1 night and I was really intrigued by the half nekkid pic of the 'star'. <br /><br />I guess this film shows what the new york film school and sir daddy's fortune - judging by the bio of this clown in the lead - can do for you and you and you cause that's about what we have here and in addition a photoshopped pic of the lead "actor" with someone else's body in a still image that doesn't happen anywhere in the movie. it's weird cause in so many ways it had money thrown at it obviously low budget money buckets but from the outset when all the extras are laughing in their scene of terror it doesn't bode well would have maybe had some charm if it had been done for 2 cents! in short order I skipped scenes and fast forwarded to see the image on the box that was all I really cared about. strange, why don't I just rent a porno or something? but wow there is bad acting that's funny I guess and bad acting that's just bad. robert englund is pretty pathetic in this along with everyone else. it does make you appreciate the more not so straight to video horror that's out there. . . blah most of which I wouldn't bother with. shoulda watched uh hellraiser 3 if I wanted to see an 8 pack! I would imagine horny old gay guys with 2 minutes in the video store are going to be the principle renters of this and they ought to start a class action suit!

I hate guns and have never murdered anyone, but when even half of the events that take place in 'Shuttle' happen to you or close ones and you find a gun, YOU SHOOT YOUR ATTACKER. THREE TIMES. FIVE TIMES. Whatever makes the pulse stop on them and increase on you. I think even God would say, "Good call." In a very 'Hostel'-type film, but more realistic – as this really could happen to anyone, well, if you're a pretty young woman, that is – 'Shuttle' was a decent film, though on the long side. A few good shocks (always call AAA even just to change a tire), basically just one surprise but for the most part, you could see things coming. And aside from the typical "tie him up" instead of the previously mentioned shooting him, the most annoying part was the revelation towards the closing from one best friend to the other. Getting past those, it's enjoyable for what it is. Basically, we have two unsuspecting females traveling alone from Mexico home (wow, that's original) and one lost her luggage preventing them from leaving the airport until late. And after an obvious foreshadowed sign-language scene, they enter a "too-good-to-be-true" half-price shuttle ride. Clichéd jocks, previously introduced, con their way on the shuttle, to join what appears to be Alan Ruck's stunt double from 'Speed.' From here, it's obvious what happens (I did mention it was a 'Hostel' knock off) but still, I didn't find too much horrible, yet nothing spectacular. Though, it would've served the audience better with roughly 15-20 minutes deleted, I would recommend if you have almost 2 hours to kill and are into sick horror.

This is about as stupid as it gets.<br /><br />A classic case of two-dimensional characters who always act exactly contrary as to what a sane person would do in the same situation. It reminds me of a scene in "Scary Movie" where Carmen Electra flees from the killer. There are two signs, one marked "to safety", the other one "to sure death" (I am reciting from memory).<br /><br />And just like in Scary Movie, the characters always run into the direction marked "Sure Death". <br /><br />Why oh why did the girl start the fire in the teller booth AND HOLD THE DOOR SHUT ??? Did she prefer to die in the fire instead being killed by the guy? Why oh why, after cutting and overpowering the driver did they sit him in the seat and have him being watched by the wounded guy instead of plain shooting him or at the very least knocking him out? He was running over their friend and killing him a minute before, yet they have scruples ?? Why oh why a hundred things more ... <br /><br />If this movie were a road, you could not drive a single yard because of the holes. Everything is so far-fetched, it's starting to physically hurt at times.<br /><br />Add mercilessly overplaying "actors" and a small budget to that and here's what you get. Looking at the rating and the comments, I get the feeling those people have been watching an entirely different movie.<br /><br />The one thing missing really, is the infamous red toolbox from "While She was out" - a movie that is about similar in unrealistic plot and stupid behavior of the characters.

Creakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.<br /><br />Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fiancée is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.<br /><br />Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and 1937's "Murder at the Baskervilles".<br /><br />With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp.

What movie is this??? A horrible movie with the old boring concept of infidelity which has already been achieved by the "Bhatt camp". The movie starrs EMRAAN HASHMI, UDITA GOSWAMI AND DINO MOREA. The movie has "No Base". It just goes like this... Dino an Udita are married and living in a rich mansion. However Dino doesn't like Udita to the heart as he wants only her wealth. He loves someone else (Tara Sharma). So he bribes Emraan to have an affair with Udita so that he could catch them and finally split up with Udita.. How BORING!! However Emraan falls in love with Udita and vice versa. Lastly when Udita gets imprisonment for killing Emraan, Dino pretentiously tries to save her showing his false love to her. Udita on the other hand does not understand this and feels that he loved her truly. So she lends all her wealth to Dino. Finally Dino comes out of the police - station and goes with Tara with all the wealth. What a fraud!! The songs are good and are the only thing good in the movie. Now the individual ratings: (Out of 5) Emraan: * * Udita: * 1/2 Dino : * 1/2 Overall acting: * 1/2 Direction: * * Story: * Music: * * * 1/2 Final rating: * 1/2 Poor performances and poor casting....... Music: Good... I rate the movie: 1.5 / 10 (Dont waste your time !!!!)

Ruggero Deodato is often credited for inventing the cannibal subgenre with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST in 1975. But director Umberto Lenzi, usually acknowledged as a Deodato rip-off, directed THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER 3 years earlier in 1972. Is it a worthy start for the genre? Well....not really.....<br /><br />A photographer accidentally kills a man in self-defense and while retreating into the jungles of an Asian country, is captured by a native tribe who hold him captive, force him into slave labor, and eventually accept him when he marries the chief's daughter. Throughout the whole film, I never felt this was a horror film. It was more reminiscent of a drama, like A MAN CALLED HORSE, which I liked better. Ivan Rassimov is pretty good as the photographer, but it is Me Me Lai as the chief's daughter who is memorable and great. I have always been a Me Me Lai fan ever since her breathtaking performance in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and she is never given credit for her acting chops because she hardly speaks in her films. She is still very talented and charming. Lots of real animal mutilation is the one thing about DEEP RIVER that could make it a horror film, but even that doesn't execute well.<br /><br />THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER is good to see for those who want to see what started the cannibal subgenre, but as an entry in the genre, is easily eclipsed by Deodato's entries and even Lenzi's own later entries. Recommended only for completists and Me Me Lai fans.

My Take: Routine political thriller with mediocre action scenes and predictable twists. <br /><br />A rarely seen political thriller, which made a very poor box-office response, I managed to catch THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY on TV just now, and while I was glad that I satisfied my curiosity to see this rare film, I didn't exactly feel this film was all special. Considering the box-office response to it, SHADOW CONSPIRACY is not all quite as bad as critics and the public reacted to it, but still ain't very good to begin with and everything, from script to direction, is pretty predictable. Charlie Sheen plays the presidential assistant who finds himself caught up with assassins and chases (a lot of them) when he discovers a deadly conspiracy which lurks amongst the White House staff. After a professor is murdered, Sheen aids the help of ex-flame reporter Amanda Givens (Linda Hamilton) to uncover the traitor and unlock the conspiracy of the title. <br /><br />But this script, written by Adi Hasak & Ric Gibbs, are pedestrian as they come, not much differing from other White House conspiracy thrillers as in ABSOLUTE POWER and MURDER AT 1600. Some considerable talents (Donald Sutherland, Ben Gazzara and Stephen Lang) try their best on a routine script, but rarely saves it from predictability of the script. Not to mention a ludicrous scene which involves a toy helicopter, which seems far too silly and out-of-place in this "serious" political thriller. THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY has its moments I'm sure, some of which are much to under-appreciated (director George Pan Cosmatos serves up some decent chase scenes), but none of which lifts this routine thriller of which there's not much payoff or surprises. <br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5.

Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.<br /><br />Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.<br /><br />I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!

Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.<br /><br />The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.<br /><br />The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet — 'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'. On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.<br /><br />Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice — but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.<br /><br />The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery. It could have easily been a radio play although even then it would be hard to follow the story.<br /><br />And the stolen ideas from Jane Campion's The Piano are too obvious to overlook. Not only are the beach and forest shots almost identical to those in The Piano — perhaps some of this comes down to Alun Bollinger's camera work on the latter — but the voice-over feeling and levels too are strikingly close. And who could forget when Holly Hunter's character has her wings clipped, in the form of her index finger being cut off by Sam Neill. Does it remind you of when Wiremu has his 'trigger finger' amputated, and surprisingly too with an axe? I thought so.<br /><br />All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind.

Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?<br /><br />Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist... <br /><br />But...<br /><br />The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the "how we actually got the money" mode and overcomplicated in the "who done it and why" section at the same time...<br /><br />In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this.... <br /><br />Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best? <br /><br />Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.<br /><br />The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.<br /><br />The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility. <br /><br />Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....

I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors "in the mood". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their "sincere moments." This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!

Controversial German journalist Jutta Rabe who herself got divers to the Estonia wreck, put this silly "thriller" together to save her investment.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland is of course always watchable - but he's only in three scenes. He delivers his material perfectly - as you can ask from a professional. Also, the main lead, Jürgen Prochnov, is at times very good.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is, however, bad. The actress that plays the Swedish minister secretary (or whatever she was - she seems not listed in the cast) is EXTREMELY bad.<br /><br />The script has some nice ideas, and the story is actually kind of interesting. The final screenplay should have been re-written a couple of more times though. Some scenes are plain ridiculous - especially the end scenes.<br /><br />The film is almost 2 hours, which is about 45 minutes too long. Presented as a 60 minutes TV-film, this could have been really interesting. As a two hour feature, it's pretentious, boring, stupid and plain out silly.<br /><br />Jutta Rabe might be a good journalist (her ideas about governments using Estonia to transport military items from Estonia to Sweden have been concluded as true recently, when the Swedish military officially said that they actually used the ship Estonia for this), but as a film producer she sucks.<br /><br />The director, the writer and the actors suck more.<br /><br />I give this film 3/10. I would've given it a 1, if it wasn't for the fact that the story is quite interesting at times, Donald Sutherland is in it and it has real stock footage.<br /><br />But we don't even see the boat sink! What kind of movie about a ship that sinks is that? Like a werewolf movie without werewolves...

Mr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.<br /><br />I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.<br /><br />Sorry, but a 4/10 is about the best I can give this one.

I heard this movie was bad…They even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know… To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act – that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift' – but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.

You know, I'm getting really tired of all the generic music being used in these type of movies (see Jawbreaker, Disturbing Behavior, etc). Every scene of genuine tension here (and there is some) is immediately undercut with some cheesy pop tune, completely diluting the suspense. Why do they do that? To sell some soundtracks, of course, but in this case, mission unaccomplished - did anyone buy the CD?<br /><br />And yeah, Ms. Mirren attacks her role with zest and relish (with some cheez-wiz to add kick). But what are Molly, Leslie and Vivica doing here? Their roles (they're so underused that I cannot use "characters" here) have no purpose in the storyline, so I can't figure out why three well-known actresses had been cast.<br /><br />Oh, and the ending is so unbelievably hackneyed and irresponsible. The kids get off scot-free and act as if nothing happened - all smiles at graduation. They're criminals, people! No consequences for their actions (kidnapping, assault, grade tampering) - nothing.<br /><br />Little things too - was Tingle's tale about her husband true? What's with the crossbow? Would the virginal Katie character loose her cherry on a whim like that? (Great message, guys.) Why did McKean go to her home? How did Kate's academic nemesis walk through the door at that exact moment? How do students even obtain teachers' home addresses? WHAT'S WITH JEFFREY TAMBOR?? On what basis did McKean fire Tingle? She's bloodied, battered and held hostage by students, fer cripe's sake!<br /><br />Oh well, I'm spending way more thought on the script than Mr. Williamson apparently did, so I'll stop here.<br /><br />3/10

Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the "genius" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their "big story". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.<br /><br />Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary "The Filth and the Fury". While that movie is much better and more interesting than "Swindle", it still is full of Temple's "artistic flourishes" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie "Who Killed Bambi?", which eventually became "Swindle".

I was not making big assumptions on the fact that this for sure was a very, very free adaptation from the work of Eça de Queiroz, and I must say that this free adaptation form the book as a lot of possible good ideas and characters. The problem is the way that is done, without any care, without any taste, just a rumble of bad taste clichés everywhere. The script is so fake and the characters so unreal that's makes petty seeing nice actors as Unas, Bryner, Morgado, Lagarto and others, lost themselves in a net of whatever except cinema or storytelling. For my surprise the newcomers Jorge Corrula and Soraia Chaves bravely stick in their performances, but you can see them lost like a drifted boat without any direction. And talking about direction, this seems to be something totally missing on this movie…where's the Director? Everything is bad taste; the frames are whatever, and whenever, the use of hand camera without any justified reason, the light design that should build environments doesn't exist (and no excuses that the all point is a dark real story). The problem overall in this "trying to be" film is that as no taste, or very, very bad taste. It's sad to see Jorge and Soraia melting away in such fake and gratuity sex scenes, painted here and there trough out the movie like closing narratives holes or used as fakes transition motives. Maybe Carlos Coelho da Silva should see the 2002 Carlos Carrera adaptation of the same book of Eça and get the felling of how to build a true movie.

As you might not know Eça de Queiroz is one of Portugal's most rightfully celebrated writers. He was witty, he spared no one in his critics and must now be rolling in his tomb. And that's not due to this movie being bad, which it is, but as a result of the treatment dispensed to one of his masterworks "O Crime do Padre Amaro". It's treated like cheap, throwaway trash.<br /><br />When it was publicized that this was to be a "modern and urban" take on the book I feared for the worst, normally modern in these contexts means taking the liberty to take the p**** when doing an adaptation, to half arse it in the shoddiest possible way. And so the moral and social dilemma of a priest having a secret,forbidden affair are substituted by extra-long passages of people dealing drugs and singing hip-hop for no particular or pertinent reason to the plot. It's just there like it might very well not have been.<br /><br />Oh and there's lots of sex so you can at least be counting on that when you put this on. Remember how every movie in the 80's, no matter the genre or the tone always found a way to sneak in some nudity? If it was a thriller and they had no need for it they simply found a way that when they were capturing a felon he "happened" to be in bed with a woman that would prance around screaming (naked of course) when the cops barged in. Ahem, gratuitous is the word I think. Not that there's anything wrong with nude scenes but here they make the creators of this movie look desperate simply because there's nothing else to the movie, it's totally devoid of what do you call it dramatic content.

Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.<br /><br />Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.<br /><br />Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.<br /><br />If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then.

What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :<br /><br />" Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep " <br /><br />It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations <br /><br />Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost

It is is very sad to see someone of the calibre of George C Scott in a low budget thriller which would have been better if the original novel was written by Graham Greene and directed by someone somewhat more experienced in the genre. NOT TO MENTION A BETTER CINEMATOGRAPHER. There are so many missed opportunities with the scenery and carnival merely glossed over, rather than captured to locate the movie solidly in the exotic setting of the novel.<br /><br />Elsewhere in the viewer comments on this site, one very astute observer complained about the variety of diabolically bad accents in this film. Ever since I saw George C Scott as Rochester in Jane Eyre, I have prayed for him NEVER to ever accept again a role which required him to assume a British accent. Just every now and then, he could just possibly pass for British or a very British sounding South African played obviously by an American actor. I can stomach Meryl Streep's extraordinarily laboured accents (both British and Australian) - at least she gets it right even though with every utterance, she demands that we marvel at her skill. Well, I am sorry that Mr. Scott is no Meryl Streep, and it just destroys the illusion - like having Michele Yeoh speak excruciating Mandarin with a strong Singaporean accent in Crouching Tiger etc.<br /><br />Peterson acts no differently than what we see on CSI. Except he is still very handsome and more or less slim in this movie. He is the Harrison Ford of TV. Same old expressions for every emotion, every situation. No on second thought, Ford has two - perplexed/pained and happy. I have never seen a smile on Mr. CSI!

Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.<br /><br />A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.<br /><br />I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.<br /><br />Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.<br /><br />Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.<br /><br />Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.<br /><br />I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.<br /><br />Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.<br /><br />4/10

This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.<br /><br />Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.<br /><br />I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.<br /><br />Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.<br /><br />Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.<br /><br />Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.<br /><br />I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3/10.

Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.<br /><br />While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.<br /><br />There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.<br /><br />In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.

(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the "cult" section. And people who believe it can go there and get their fill of the "reality". I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies? <br /><br />I couldn't have been more flabbergasted had Pat Robertson made a porn movie. (or would that be "flubbergasted"?) <br /><br />It was bad enough that there was an egregiously insufficient count of kicking and punching in this. It was bad enough that the same story has been done repeatedly in much better ways. It was bad enough that it wasn't filed under Special Interest, with other cult films. It was bad enough that it somehow is receiving nods for being "realistic" as if we live in the world where towns get possessed by the "debbil" and the really profound and nasty evil ISN'T done by human beings -- usually in the NAME of religions based on the god of Abraham. It was bad enough having to simply shut the thing down because people were complaining so loudly that it was awful.<br /><br />No, the really BAD part was when one of our guests stood up after we finally had to just turn the damn thing off, and declared "I for one would like to see something really violent or pornographic now, just to get that OUT of my head. Preferably both, if you have it." And we had just MET her.

Yes, dumb is the word for this actress. I know many have mentioned her beauty, but this viewer found her empty headed and boring to watch with her bleached hair, lip gloss, and not so perfect body. Watch her walk away in those jeans, showing a rather large butt. Her butt spreads beyond her shoulders. What does that tell you? As for the leading man, played by gorgeous Mark Humphrey, he was perfectly cast. A charmer. However, he and Lancaster just didn't match. She was out of place opposite this good looking guy. Good acting by Susan Glover as the sister. Angela Galuppo had a small role and was okay. But the film's director Philippe Gagnon, wasted too much footage on Lancaster. After a while you got tired of looking at her and watching her dull acting ability. And what a bitch of a wife she was. Snooping on her husband, being obnoxious to him and just a plain spoiled brat. Was happy to see her hit with the dart gun. I thought it might be the end of her. But alas, the script tells us otherwise. After torturing myself and watching this loser again, I still came up with the same criticism. Lancaster is boring to watch. This time around her hair, folks. Her hair constantly in her face, constantly tossing it back, became annoying. I question the writer, Alexandra Komisaruk's reason why a good looking wealthy man like Philippe would even bother with the likes of a bimbo like Allison. When there were so many attractive intelligent women, with class, to choose. He picks this nothing. Is this the Rochester/Jane Eyre thing? Oh well, it's all a matter of taste, I guess. This Sarah Lancaster is not my cup of tea, folks.

This must be one of the most annoying, arrogant, poser films I've ever seen. What a waste of budget and actors. Angelopoulos has reached new levels of pretentiousness. It is clear there is virtually no plot, even if this part of Greek history is material for great movies. He simply had some supposedly symbolic (actually shambolic) scenes in his mind and he built a whole movie around them. Death is the main theme and is repeated ad nauseam, along with litanies, processions and the like, which should only be a vehicle for the movie but unfortunately it is the movie itself. A totally incoherent result, which can only leave you saying "huh?" or "oh dear" every two minutes. <br /><br />There is no character development at all, nada, zilch. I'm usually complaining about some movies having two-dimensional characters, but oh boy, he managed to create one-dimensional characters. This is irritating for us and degrading for some of the actors. He even managed to make one of my favourite Greek actors, Giorgos Armenis, seem wooden. <br /><br />And going to the core of Angelopoulos film-making: No we're not idiots. We do not want chewed food. Please someone tell this guy symbolism has to be subtle. Theo do you really underestimate your audience so much or you're simply incompetent? Personally, I think he tried to make a Greek "Underground". No matter how he tries, he can't reach Kusturica.<br /><br />Only saving grace: Photography, costumes and the music.

Ewe, The opening screams zero budget. The titles whooshing in look like my grandson was let loose with iMovie. The DVD box gives the impression that you'll be treated to the old days of '80s boobie movies. NOPE! Hardly any nudity from a flick that stars Traci Lords! This movie really did need the nudity too. Instead you get a lot of Lords perkies pointing through a shirt, however they seem to be activated by hot steam. That's odd, in my world the headlights go on in the COLD.<br /><br />The plot is pathetic, the blind guy is just is a joke, and not a funny one. His antics are so forced and predictable. He trips over stuff and you see him bracing for the fall. He needs to work on his physical comedy.<br /><br />Most of Frostbite's nudity comes from a hot tub scene that looks like it was shot months later and inserted in to get a distributor. And the nudity is not worth it.<br /><br />NamoiBucks; it's just a matter of time before Starbucks sues over that. Not even funny. As Billy arrives in town for the first time they come across Namoi Bucks, He comments "Wow they have these everywhere." This leads you to believe it's a parody on Starbucks, but surprise, behind the counter of this location is Namoi herself. Apparently she loves coffee so much that the owner of this huge chain decided to work in a tiny cold town.<br /><br />The only thing this movie has going for it is the Warren Miller snowboarding footage. Yep this is all Warren's stuff, so if you want to see great action, get a Warren miller flick. Leave Frostbite alone.<br /><br />There is nothing good about this movie. There is no reason to rent it or buy it, and if a friend offers to loan you a copy for free. Hit him and end the friendship.

The Motion Picture Association of America has seen fit to advise potential viewers and this is particularly useful to parents and guardians that this film which is hereby titled "Frostbite" is given a "R" rating.The "R" rating has specific information which allows any person who not knowing anything about a film to know something about what this film provides.The "R" was instituted for Sexual Content including Nudity and Perverse dialog,language, crude sense of humor and drug use.There is no reward in viewing such a film though it would be useful to know if this could be removed as a possibility at all I would as this reviewer remove such a possibility.This is a film whereby merely a 1 was not the equal to a number as it did not qualify as a film to be counted,in fact such as this purpose is with this film so should such a purpose be with this films place at all.This is a unwholesome and undesirable offerring that should of been given a much stricter interpretation because at no point is conduct or language suitable for viewing and this kind of film may wish for a Blacklist rather than a stricter definition as to its content.It is suggested hereby that the stricter definition would allow,it is hereby put forth a criminal charge.It may any way irregardless of its rating.This is a unsavory world which would damage any persons viewing this film as its purpose is to commit an offense.It is an offense and it is offensive in its purpose.There is no sense of humor in the film but a depraved and indifferent purpose as to its undesirable underpinning.Without reservation this is a do not see list and perhaps not entirely necessary to say to any adults considering but to any whose interests concern the environment to which there children grow up in,do not allow nor provide any young person the viewing of this film it is unfriendly.Society often sends the wrong message when these kinds of problems are in the public domain let this not be one of those times.

This is possibly the worst of the cockney gangster genre that has blighted the British film industry since Mockney Guy Ritchie unleashed Lock stock and two badly acted barrels. This "True Life" story of Carlton Leach (who?) has everything that is wrong with this genre, a truly awful script that consists of people screeching "Cant", "Fahcking Cant" and "I'll kill ya, ya fahcking cant" ad nauseum. The acting is uniformly dreadful with the two most recognisable cast members being two former soap stars quite visably out of their depth. For some reason the film assumes we have heard of these people and i can assure you anybody north of Essex hasn't, and that we should be interested in some low lifes story. Why? This isn't Goodfellas despite the blurb on the DVD cover. The story centres around a football hooligan turned bouncer turned gangster who's friends end up getting shot. Boo hoo. The fact that these people are totally unsympathetic is the only minor plus for this film. In all of the action scenes it seems that the camera was tied to a piece of string and whirled around while people pretended to fight and the story of somebody most people have never heard of and nothing really interesting happens too is a complete waste of time. People talk about how violent the film is as though it's the sign of a great film and, although many great films have violence in them, this is just an excuse for the FX man to show what he can do. Overall this film is a reminder of why the British film industry is defunct and the sooner we stop funding these pathetic abortions the better.

Having had more than a few mates suggest i check Rise of the Footsoldier out, i eventually got round to it last night. Undoubtedly the story Colton Leach has to tell (and did so in his autobiography) is a compelling tale of one mans ascent from Terrace boot boy to connected underworld villain. This film sadly compromised in quality by miscasts, appalling accents and woeful acting.Ricci Harnett in the lead role of Leach does a reasonable job of conveying the transition from thuggery to serious criminal but his accent is all over the place. As his voice provides the stories narration it is something that after ten minutes was driving me nuts. Terry Stone as Tony Tucker provided the unintentional comedy with an ill fitting wig (or the worst Barnett going)dialogue that was so expletive riddled it bordered on juvenile and an over the top vehemence in line delivery reducing Tucker to parody.What troubled me most about this film was that the events leading up to the shooting in Rettenden, Essex and the formative years of Leach are of genuine interest to crime fans and fans of football hooliganism so, to have this story sabotaged by a lack of credible accents and acting left me feeling an opportunity had been missed. Roland Manookian and Frank Harper provide the films only source of authenticity. On the positive side some of the films pacing and construct flowed well and kept the attention. The violence was well choreographed and aside from an over reliance on projectile red syrup for blood spatterings was on the whole realistic. If you enjoyed the film then it is worth checking out Essex Boys telling a similar tale from fictionalised viewpoint and also featuring Billy Murray.

There is no doubt that the Kokoda Trail depicts a truly great event in Australian Military history the brave defence of Australia against the cruel barbaric Japanese Army.Howver this film fails to take into account the story of the "Fuzzy Wuzzy's" or the New Guinea natives that The Australians used to help them carry out there military operations. The film also fails to give a credible account of the Australian soldier and his behaviour in this event. It is more like an uninformed contemporary view of what is was like.<br /><br />Again the Australian film industry has failed to give this important chapter in Australia';s history the film it deserved. This is film making at its worst with arbitrary cinematography , bad scripting and dialogue , no character development and cliché jungle warfare scenes.<br /><br />It fails to imbue the audience in any meaningful perspective other than the Japanese Army were ruthless and cruel murderers of an ill-equipped and badly trained group of Australians fighting in a jungle.<br /><br />The film failed as most Australian films do to attract a significant Australian audience in fact they stayed away in droves.<br /><br />I am not going to join the usual parochial garbage of saying its great because its an Australian film. I say either do a great job or just leave it to some one who knows how. This government funded film is just another failure by Australia's wealthy and spoilt rich kids.<br /><br />I am giving it zero stars because its an insult to the descendants of these truly great Australians and their enormous sacrifice. What a shameful waste and disrespect and I know this review will provoke more negativity from the Movie Show crew and most reviewers but I have a right to my opinion and that's what Australians fought for OUR FREEDOM and that includes freedom of speech and the right to express an opinion.

I should've realised it was a sign of things to come when the trailer for this film bored me.<br /><br />Having watched several "indie" films on the strength of the reviews on here, and subsequently finding that my view is completely opposite to those other reviewers, I began wondering if it's possible I am watching completely different films from these people, or are they perhaps friends/family etc of the film makers trying to 'big up' their work? Hmmm.<br /><br />Are you interested in seeing an amateur's homage to Pulp Fiction and 11:14, except done with worse actors, a silly score (undermines various scenes) and unbelievable jumps in logic? If not, then skip this film.<br /><br />Here is my open letter to two of the players in this film.<br /><br />Alfonso Morgan, please, please, please, stop trying to 'be' Samuel L Jackon a la Pulp Fiction. No-one can do what he does as well as he does.<br /><br />Director, please come up with something original. It does you a disservice to churn out this stuff pretending to be Quentin Tarantino.<br /><br />Simply dire, and I really cannot see how anyone could say this is a good film. It is a disgrace that people have somehow managed to put a score of 8.5 on this, the same as films like Pulp fiction or Goodfellas. It is no-where near these movies; a 4 or 5 would be a more reasonable average rating, I give it a 3.

I just finished watching Disappearances at AFI FEST 2006 with about 30 other people in a mostly vacant 1000 seat auditorium. The festival programmer, after seeing the lack of audience, started his opening comments with, "Well at least a few of those attending the festival have good taste in film". Well Mr. Programmer, after watching this film I must answer back "No we don't, and either do you!" This "back-woods" period piece follows young (not so) Wild Bill as he and his mystic family dangerously run illegal Canadian whiskey across the border during America's prohibition. The old-time outlaws (Kris Kristofferson and company) not only need the money to save their ramshackle Vermont farm but want to introduce little Wild Bill to the virtues of manhood.<br /><br />Although handsomely photographed, this adventure story lacks what makes films of this sort good, "tension" and believability. Kristofferson's lackluster performance and dry monologue reminds me of a dream I once had where Al Gore was playing the role of Willy Wonka. I just didn't care and when Wild Bills mystic grandmother appears out of thin air to give him advice it just didn't fit. Yes, I almost fell asleep more than once.<br /><br />Gary Farmer does do a good job as the Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller character; brother-in-law of Big Bill while the teenage Chris McDermott does uses those piercing blue eyes to his acting benefit.<br /><br />But overall expect to see Jay Cravens Disappearances playing at a Block Buster $2 Bin near you.

SPOILERS, BEWARE!!! Flashdance is a fair movie, in my opinion. Some things do confuse me about it (e.g. Jeanie asks Alex how long it took for her to get so good at dancing; Alex replies "About 25 years," isn't Alex supposed to be 18?) and some things do fascinate me about it (I LOVED the spins!). Overall, though, it intrigued me. When this movie was made, I wasn't even born. I didn't really experience the eighties (I was born in '85) and I have to wonder: sometimes Alex would just run in place a bit, or throw herself all over, not really dancing, just banging in to things, tossing her head back, and waving her arms-was this considered "dancing" back then? If it was, I'm not sure I could've standed it. The spins, the flip, the fluid movements were great, but some of it-my neighbor's toddler could've done better! Also, if Alex is a welder during the day, wouldn't she be tired after a hard day's work? When she doesn't go to work for nearly a week, wouldn't she be laid off? Living in a warehouse-I can almost see it, but not quite. It doesn't seem right that she's a welder, owns a warehouse house, AND is trying to get into ballet. None of it really makes sense. I shouldn't be too judgemental considering my own background, but please. Maybe Jennifer Beals is too feminine for me to see her as a welder, I don't know. But either way, they could've picked a better actress. The actors were fine. I even liked the romance. You make your own decision. But mine is-rent it once, don't see it again-it isn't worth it.

Flashdance is one of those awful, stupid movies that you actually kind-of enjoy, just because they're so crap. I just watched it on TV & my friend and I were amazed at how dopey it was. It's true that Don Simpson and the other producers came up with the idea of a fairly cheap, lowbrow flick with lots of sweaty bodies to help sell a soundtrack of (admitedly catchy) pop, so Flashdance is an odd sort of pioneer: the first MTV movie. Adrian Lyne started out in advertising and it shows because Flashdance is almost a commercial for itself. You've already decided to watch it but the movie has this weird, panicky undercurrent, as though it's frightened that you might change your mind at any moment. It keeps selling itself to you over and over, all the way through, using slick commercial-style editing and glossy close-ups of jiggling breasts. The story is wafer thin (I honestly can't think of another film I've seen with less plot) and it never makes much sense, but its a very contrived, calculating movie, so it feels consistent. People say it's dated but Flashdance was always rubbish. Viewers in the early 80's knew it was just cheesy T&A but it does work in its own silly fashion. There's soppy romance for the chick-flick crowd and stacks of oily, writhing female bodies for their dates, all set to a pumping disco beat. How could it fail? It helps that the dialogue is pointless, so you can grab a popcorn without missing anything major and, if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, you can always laugh at the 'interpretive dance' on display. The scene where a stand-in for Jennifer Beals convulses/'dances' on stage in front of a TV with a fan in it and a face full of white clown make-up had us in stitches. A genuine guilty pleasure.

I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled "exorcism". So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it!

I initially tuned in to Paranormal State because I (more or less) find the paranormal search genre to be interesting TV, if nothing else.<br /><br />I really enjoy Ghost Hunters because well over half of their investigations result in total debunking, and find Most Haunted to be hilarious with its use of mediums and frumpy British women with Paris Hilton day-glo eyes fainting from fear/demonic presences all shot in lovely night-vision green.<br /><br />Paranormal State has none of this appeal. It feels like it was cobbled together from "leads" that Ghost Hunters rejected. The episodes ranged from trailer trash families and single mothers with emo adolescents sitting around and scaring themselves, to an "interview" with a 5 year old about the monster who lives in his room (the monster goes RAWRRR, we are told). All of these people calling upon a college club to solve their problems. The whole show is about Ryan and his partner, his enormous ego. He leads his troupe of doe-eyed coeds around, except when a case is deemed "too extreme" and orders them to remain at the hotel HAHAHA. Better leave it to the pros, ie himself.<br /><br />The unwitting comedy of this show is all in how gullible the participants are. Ryan spins his tales of being hunted, followed, etc by a demon that he first encountered when the Catholic Church recruited him to assist on a case. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has people who can do that, they don't need the day-shift manager at Quiznos to chip in his 2 cents.<br /><br />This show is awful, shame on A&E for bankrolling this silliness, trying to follow in the footsteps of some much better paranormal-themed shows. It's almost unintentionally funny, except that Ryan is so arrogant and devoid of charisma that watching the show long enough to mock it isn't worth the trouble.

I was excited to see this show when I started seeing the promos on A&E. I've been fascinated with ghosts and the paranormal since I was a kid, and love catching "Ghost Hunters" when it's on (SciFi Channel). I've tried to watch three episodes of "Paranormal State" and only use up my time commenting on it because it's so bad and perpetuates the notion that anyone who believes in the paranormal is a gullible freak. "Paranormal State" is beyond cheesy. Cheesy "Director's Log" voice-overs that will leave you wishing for Captain Kirk. Cheesy teasers going into commercial breaks that are taken completely out of context. Everything paranormal on this show is automatically assumed to be "evil" and the work of a demonic spirit. Then come the exorcists, demonologists, psychics ... like in "Poltergeist" you almost expect the team to leave and say "This house is clear." I very much appreciate the "Ghost Hunters" approach, where they go in to disprove claims, then take away what they can ... and they are almost always reassuring to the client (if they find anything) that haunted does not equal evil. "Paranormal State" is not "so bad it's good" ... it's just plain bad. Didn't A&E used to stand for "Arts & Entertainment"? The art part has long been gone, and the entertainment factor is now waning as well.

Can anyone give me a reason why only one American dies in this movie, and when he does, it is supposed to be a very emotional scene, yet when the Operation Delta Force team kills hundreds of Russians, in slow-motion action scenes, or thousands of Arabs, also in slow-motion action scenes, you are supposed to cheer and say "Take that, you non-American monsters!". I know I used "slow-motion action scenes" a lot, but that is because every action scene in this movie is in, you guessed it, slow-motion. Every last one of them... And this squad should be called "Invincible Slow-Motion Bullet-Dodging Force", since they seem to have supernatural powers that help them to dodge bullets. And if this supernatural power fails, they have some kind of regeneration superpower, which is all they need to kill the complete non-American army that stands between them and victory. By this point, nobody cares since they have been put to sleep by another laughable slow-motion action scene... That is if they are not laughing out loud at the bad acting, cheesy dialogues and incredibly poor story. Which is what I did... The cast is made of unknown actors, which will probably remain unknown since they don't even play characters. They are just playing guys with guns(and, lets not forget, superpowers)... The only quality is that the special effects are surprisingly not that bad(although they are in slow-motion) for a TV movie... But it still sucks... and at the same time is so bad it's good... OK, maybe at the end it gets a little too repetitive...<br /><br />25%

Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. "Red Shadow" is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like "Hot Shots" or "Scary Movie". Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In "Red Shadow" the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. "Red Shadow" just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time!

This is the worst kind of film.<br /><br />The plot is ludicrous, the characters are unrealistic stereotypes who never look like they believe it themselves. Are white people such monsters that they will continue to call two white child rapists in their 20s "good boys" and need to be persuaded that this might be grounds for provocation? Are black people universally inspiring? Do the Ku Klux Klan really stand outside court rooms shooting at lawyers with nobody intervening? Do judges really think that a fair trial can be conducted when the jury can hear a mob outside shouting "Kill him"? Do black people really stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan waiting to hear the verdict? Do wives really take several months to realise that their husband might be defending a man from unfair hanging because he knew might have done the same thing? Do juries really acquit people of murder because they feel sorry for them? Do lawyers really use a defense of sanity in order to persuade people that their client was temporarily insane? <br /><br />Worst of all, any high-minded principles of this film were lost to the completely exploitative and gratuitous use of sexual crime to titillate the audience. Was the subject of rape, let alone child gang rape, really in competent hands here? Is it really a subject that belongs in Hollywood hands? And if so, why the completely gratuitous kidnap and stripping of Sandra Bullock? And the completely pointless statutory rape charge against one of the witnesses? Seems like the director didn't feel THAT strongly about sex crime after all.<br /><br />This was taking the excellent plot of To Kill a Mockingbird and making a crass, shallow, tasteless money-spinner from it. Shame on them.

"Black Friday" did this plot so much better, which is why it is remembered and "The Man With Two Lives" is just a forgotten potboiler. "Shed No Tears" was it's working title and it would have been a better one as he was a thoroughly evil character for most of the film.<br /><br />Philip Bennett is newly engaged when he is involved in a traffic accident. Dr. Clark (Edward Keene) has been involved in some experimental operations on animals - bringing them back from the dead. His colleagues urge him to try his operation on Phillip, who has died. As he is operating , a dangerous criminal, Wolf Panino, is going to the electric chair and trans migration of the soul occurs. When Phillip awakes from the operation, he has the soul of Panino. He is a changed person, he is rude to his family and starts to hang around Panino's old haunts. He takes over Wolf's old gang - going by the name of Philip Bennett, he also romance's Wolf's former girlfriend - who smells a rat. Bennett, as Wolf, is determined to even up scores and starts to eliminate his enemies.Bodies pile up, including the girlfriend and a policeman, then his own family begins to fall victim.<br /><br />But - I HATE those "bad dream" movies - you always feel let down. This film would have been better if he had stayed in character as Panino and had a final shoot out. Eleanor, his fiancée, would have ended up sadder but wiser with his brother. <br /><br />Edward Norris, the star, had a big career mostly in B movies.<br /><br />Not really recommended.

Well, it is a Monogram quickie from the dreaded period of the '40s when poverty row studios put out a good many "horror" films that are almost unimaginably dull... So I was expecting the worst. <br /><br />The story concerns a doctor who has been working on a way to restore life to the dead through the use of a room full of non-utilitarian electrical devices which spark nicely. There is a dog's heart hanging under a bell jar and twitching fitfully, which we are informed is proof that his method is perfected.<br /><br />A brief discussion of the metaphysical implications and mention of an important plot point precede the inevitable death of a young man who is revived in a rather undramatic sequence - undramatic even with the sparks. The important plot point is that a convicted murderer is being executed just at midnight, which turns out to be exactly when the young man is revived. It is no surprise that the young man is very different after his experience; apparently amnesiac and with a strange desire to visit the haunts of the underworld and become acquainted with certain gangsters...<br /><br />It's hard to explain why this all is not completely unwatchable, but perhaps it suffices to say that it's mildly interesting and contains several murders and a couple of interesting characters. Towards the end it even begins to move along with a bit of real tension and a confrontation that is downright Hitchcockian. SPOILER<br /><br />I have to warn of a very, very bad ending. A tagged on unnecessary, pain in the ass sorta ending. After the plot resolves rather effectively...<br /><br />You know the sort of thing... It's all a dream. Never happened.

I thought I had seen this film before as the plot summary sounded familiar. However, when I watched it one afternoon (in need of some mindless-but-amusing entertainment), I didn't recognise anything - if I had seen it before, I must have blocked the horror of it from my memory.<br /><br />This film is dreadful, and it shows its age. In fact, it looks older than it is: more like a mid-80s moronic comedy. Whilst I am a fan of toilet humour and can see the funny side of many things, this is "comedy" at its most puerile and homophobic. The plot is as thin as a Supermodel, which wouldn't bother me if only the film were funny.<br /><br />There is only one amusing line in the whole film, spoken by the character Louis: "Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!" In fact, Louis is the only likable character (and that's not saying much). James and Carl are the type of irritating, immature men that a sensible woman would run a mile from, their practical jokes about as humorous as the war in Iraq; the character of Susan Wilkins is colourless (looks like Julia Roberts, but lacks her charisma) and there is zero chemistry between her and Carl - though it may be unfair to blame the actress, as I don't know what she could have done with such a poorly written part; and the villain is neither funny nor scary nor memorable.<br /><br />There is good trash and bad trash. This is trash that definitely should not be recycled.

Just ONCE, I would like to see Koontz's work given to a decent screenwriter, director, and producer! JUST ONCE!<br /><br />This is a good attempt by Jean LeClerc and Chris Sarandon, and an even better attempt by Victoria Tennant, but everything else is pure unadulterated garbage. The screenwriter should be shot for bastardizing Koontz's work this way and the director...please.<br /><br />The story is a well-written story, but the screenplay is quite dull, unbelievable and horribly executed. The only elements which work are the performances by LeClerc, Sarandon, and Tennant.<br /><br />On a personal note, I really wanted this to work. I adore Koontz's novels, but they have never given them the attention, backing, and talent they deserve. If they put the same money into Koontz's work that they shovel by the barrels-full into King's, Koontz would quickly rise above. But alas! Without powerful people who believe in his work, I fear he will never get the chance.<br /><br />As an adaptation to the novel, this movie was a total suck-fest. As a stand alone movie, it wasn't that bad, though extremely weak in many places with huge plot holes and terrible, stiff, unprofessional dialog which never should have made it to the final cut. This movie failed miserably to live up to its potential. Had they followed the original work by Koontz, a bit more closely, and invested a decent amount of production money, this could have been a far better endeavor.<br /><br />However, all I can manage to see in this, is how good it could have been, and wasn't.<br /><br />It rates a 4.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

I had watched this on Italian TV as a kid and recall being fond of it – in view of its mixing live-action with animation; however, it was universally panned at the time…and, catching up with it again after all these years, I have to admit that the critics were right! <br /><br />What must have seemed wondrous to a child's eyes is actually very poorly done, not to mention boring for a fantasy-adventure; fatally, both star (ex-'Angry Young Man' Richard Harris) and director (action expert Hunt) are ill-suited to the material! At least, Michel Legrand's score (with lyrics provided by scriptwriter Don Black) is serviceable – if not exactly inspired. By the way, a number of well-known personalities are featured among the voice artists on this British-Belgian co-production (Julian Glover, Bessie Love, Murray Melvin, Robert Rietty, Vladek Sheybal, Graham Stark and, this being his last film work, Michael Bates).<br /><br />While the essential plot points of Jonathan Swift's classic novel ('giant' Gulliver becomes the pawn in a war between the little people of two neighboring countries and, on escaping, ends up in a land of real giants) do emerge here, it's done on a strictly kiddie level (with stereotyped characters though, thankfully, little intrusion of the comic/romantic variety) – which renders the whole venture somewhat pointless, outside of its intrinsically experimental nature, since Max and Dave Fleischer had already done a splendid feature-length cartoon version of the book way back in 1939!

Get Shorty was an excellent film. It was funny and had the perfect balance of highly comical acting and a serious plot. Be Cool is like some cheap knock-off trying to pass for a sequel. John Travolta as Chili Palmer seems to have forgotten that he was ever in the mob. He plays it like he's a bored movie exec, rather than a bored movie exec who used to be a Shylock. Uma Thurman, great in nearly every role she's ever played, comes off as strained and confusing. Is she supposed to be ditzy or clever? The chemistry between her and Travolta is strained and uncomfortable. Other than that, just add every movie cliché you can think of. A well-educated rap producer by Cedric the Entertainer, an inept gangster wannabe in Andre 3000, the girl with heart, soul, and a good set of pipes in Christina Milian, a gimmicky black dude wannabe in Vince Vaughn, and a stupid celebrity cameo by Stephen Tyler. The only funny part was the Rock, who invents his own new cliché as a gay Samoan bodyguard actor wannabe. Probably the biggest crime is the plot: IT MAKES NO SENSE. Get Shorty was clever with Chili playing one group against another and coming out on top. But this film tries that with about a million different characters. And even Chili doesn't seem to know what's going on. Fans of Get Shorty be warned: this is a very different, very worse movie.

I rarely give ratings less than 5, but in this instance I must weigh in. Elmore Leonard is a great writer with many wonderful, complex books, original characters, crisp dialogue, invigorating plot twists. Films based on his books go way back to Hombre (Paul Newman), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson), and Out of Sight (Clooney / Lopez) among others. Even when done so-so the films at least have some measure of story essence coming through. This one, .... it is simply not a worthy addition to the catalog.<br /><br />The acting is bad (I do not know why, because these are very capable people here) and the story is handled with stupidity. The characters are re-arranged, the chemistry is missing, the actors and actresses are mis-cast.<br /><br />Since Elmore Leonard is a really great story teller, I would hope that anyone who does not know his work would be dissuaded from reading his books because they saw this disappointing rendition of one of his stories.<br /><br />The story is a sequel to Get Shorty. If you have not seen that film, do not watch this. If you have seen Get Shorty, do not proceed to this.<br /><br />I saw Be Cool a few years back, and tonight have been re-visiting the vid. The first time must not have made such a negative impression because I had forgotten how dismal this sequel was.<br /><br />Fortunately, I think no less of those who appeared in this film for having done so. They probably expected something more. Get Shorty was original and great fun. Travolta I nearly always like, but he is so much better in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and in the preceding Get Shorty. He was clearly unable to enjoy whatever was going on here.<br /><br />And I hear Freaky Deaky,another Elmore Leonard book, is in pre-production for 2008 release. Hopefully they can pull it off.<br /><br />Read the books. They are almost all great.

If pulp fiction and Get shorty didn't exist this might be an OK film.When i say this i mean that nothing from this film is it's own unless it's another bit of terrible dialogue or a cliché full scene.All the lines like 'i won't say more than i have to if that' from Get shorty seem to appear in this rubbish sequel, all the cameos like Steven Tyler's are acted terribly and are not needed and as for Christina Milian, man, don't get me started.Sadly some of the coolest actors and actresses like John Travolta and Uma Thurman seem like they are trying to be down with the kids and hip and have nearly ruined there reputation because of this film and frankly i think the best acting is from The rock who plays alongside one of my least favourite actors, Vince Vaughn.The man tries to be funny throughout with him taking the mickey of how apparently rappers talk.Cedric the entertainer and Andre 3000 play another terrible double act {i personally think the background actors were better than Cedric and Andre} and the only funny part of the acting of Cedric,Andre and the rest of there gang do is the way there trousers are down to there knees so you can clearly see there boxers and the only reason i find this funny is because lots of people actually do that.So in conclusion this film tries to be funny and fails miserably, it doesn't have any new material, comedy or coolness throughout as it copies every other film and finally the only reason you should see it is if you want to compare how bad it is to it's brilliant predecessor Get shorty.Oh yes i forgot to mention there is a BIG cliché at the end.

Despite John Travolta's statements in interviews that this was his favorite role of his career, "Be Cool" proves to be a disappointing sequel to 1995's witty and clever "Get Shorty."<br /><br />Travolta delivers a pleasant enough performance in this mildly entertaining film, but ultimately the movie falls flat due to an underdeveloped plot, unlikeable characters, and a surprising lack of chemistry between leads Travolta and Uma Thurman. Although there are some laughs, this unfunny dialog example (which appeared frequently in the trailers) kind of says it all: Thurman: Do you dance? Travolta: Hey, I'm from Brooklyn.<br /><br />The film suggests that everyone in the entertainment business is a gangster or aspires to be one, likening it to organized crime. In "Get Shorty," the premise of a gangster "going legitimate" by getting into movies was a clever fish-out-of water idea, but in "Be Cool," it seems the biz has entirely gone crooked since then.<br /><br />The film is interestingly casted and the absolute highlight is a "monolgue" delivered by The Rock, whose character is an aspiring actor as well as a goon, where he reenacts a scene between Gabrielle Union and Kirsten Dunst from "Bring It On." Vince Vaughan's character thinks he's black and he's often seen dressed as a pimp-- this was quite funny in the first scene that introduces him and gets tired and embarrassing almost immediately afterward.<br /><br />Overall, "Be Cool" may be worth a rental for John Travolta die-hards (of which I am one), but you may want to keep your finger close to the fast forward button to get through it without feeling that you wasted too much time. Fans of "Get Shorty" may actually wish to avoid this, as the sequel is devoid of most things that made that one a winner. I rate this movie an admittedly harsh 4/10.

I started watching this because i thought it was a really shitty porno. As i kept watching the only thrill i got from this movie was finding out what the name of it was so i could look it up and rip on it. I just finished it and have considered ending my life knowing that someone actually made this movie.<br /><br />For the people who commented on this movie as having a good script and great acting, my words of wisdom for you are that you probably have no friends because you were in the movie. You are probably wishing you had all that time back of your life that you wasted on making this movie.<br /><br />There is no way that this is a serious movie. There was an old guy that gets stabbed and it doesn't even hurt him at all. And when everyone else gets stabbed they drop dead.<br /><br />It was probably important that these people killed random people and ate them and also hung out with an 80 year old man that wanted to put the parts into his body.<br /><br />My favorite part was when the old man found the "hemoglobens" or however you spell it because that made the movie seem very intellectual and probably helped to reach the older crowd.<br /><br />What really blew my mind that they decided to throw in that random scene about the college girls going into the woods looking for fake skulls.<br /><br />If you do attempt to see this movie, you should probably fill up your bathtub and drop your hairdryer in it and be ready to jump in.<br /><br />THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!....for anyone who believes there life could not get any worse because this will help you realize there are people out there(the makers of this movie) who are even more pathetic and are going no where in life.

Ugh, bad, bad, bad, but I have seen worse which is why I gave it a 2 instead of a 1. Just got finished watching this movie and I thought it was about as rotten as the flesh on Dr. Chopper's face. The worst line of the movie had to be "I like to introduce you to someone... meet my inner b*tch" which consisted of the lone survivor of the fantastic 5 group throwing a trash can at Dr. Chopper and then falling on the stage. Second worst line, "I'm the park ranger that's gonna f*ck you up" What, this freak ain't even a cop????? Did anyone else notice how everyone instantly dies from the magic gut stab (no one dies that quick from a gut stab, I know this cause I see them frequently in the operating room) except super park ranger. Dude had like a bucket of blood poor out of that wound, writhes around on the floor some, and then comes in for the finale to take a parting shot at Dr. Chopper while inner b*tch lies cowering on the floor. And if that don't beat all, he doesn't even have the decency to die then like everyone else. Inner b*tch helps him limp outside and proceeds to tell him not to die while she runs for help cause he's like her only friend left alive now. Since when did these two become friends? I don't think a frantic meeting in the woods where he tells you to head for the city qualifies as getting to know you time but whatever. <br /><br />Only watch this movie if there's nothing else own and you have nothing else to do with your time.

This film has a really weird mixture of genres - toilet humour and action in one. It doesn't really pull it off - it should have stuck to one genre. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the dog in it is cute.<br /><br />The most disturbing sequence is in the middle of the film when Moses (Sandler) and Carter (Wayans) decide to stop off at a hunting lodge/motel. I'm not quite sure what the point of this sequence is - it just seems gratuitous in the extreme. The proprietor of the hunting lodge ("Charlie") is a very nerdy looking guy. For some reason, Moses starts a conversation with Charlie about porno, jacking off, homosexual sex, sex in a threesome... Charlie's photo of his "wife" appears to be Charlie dressed in drag. There is no reason for this really juvenile dialogue and scene. Anyway, the whole scene seems to be directed to the moment when a naked Moses ends up with Carter's gun up his butt and Charlie sees them through the window. It all reeks of school boy humour about homosexuality - horrified and titillated all at the same time - which I don't find funny at all.<br /><br />I have a friend who is always raving about Adam Sandler movies. This is the first one I've seen - after this, I'm not sure I want to see any more.<br /><br />BTW, this is my husband's account - he's seen Happy Gilmore, and he tells me it's quite good - maybe I should give Sandler just one more chance.<br /><br />Countess Skogg

My age: 13<br /><br />Keats, played by Damon Wayans, and Archie Moses, played by Adam Sandler, are the best of friends and have been for a year. What Moses doesn't know is that Keats is really Jack Carter, an undercover cop, who is waiting for the right time to bust Moses and Frank Colton, a major criminal who Moses is involved with. When Colton and Moses find out that Keats is a cop, Colton wants to kill Moses, but he gets away after shooting Carter in the head, which does not kill Carter. Moses is found by the cops and is taken for proof of Colton's wrongdoing. But when the cops, including Carter, are about to escort him across the country on a plane, all the other cops are killed and Moses and Carter are alone in the desert. Carter has to stay alive as well as take Moses in.<br /><br />A fairly average action-comedy, Bulletproof has a fair plot but a lot of the film is just plain stupid. For a comedy, I found most of the jokes entirely unfunny. But as an action movie, it has a few fairly good action scenes. Not being a good fan of either Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans, I found the acting and therefore, the characters, well below par. The climax isn't really great, and the film is so unrealistic. It is not entirely bad, but also not too good, and it is far too short. Running below 85 minutes, I though there was another 15 minutes left before it ended, but there wasn't, and the film felt too short. Overall not a complete waste of time, but I still wouldn't recommend Bulletproof.<br /><br />Australian Classification: MA 15+: Medium Level Violence, Sexual References, Medium Level Coarse Language<br /><br />Rating: 56 out of 100

The future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. "Epos" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.<br /><br />Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:<br /><br />- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.<br /><br />- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).<br /><br />- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.<br /><br />- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...<br /><br />- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.<br /><br />- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.<br /><br />- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demonoïd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.<br /><br />If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN.

This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of "Mortal Kombat", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the "Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and "Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking.

Adored by fans for his unusually charming creativity and by Hollywood for his softball, user-friendly movie-making techniques, Tim Burton tipped the scales too far in formula's favor with his new upset of a cinematic legend, Sleepy Hollow. Following the quest of Ichabod Crane – played by Johnny Depp, delivering this dreary film's only shining point – to the heart of the mystery surrounding a town's seemingly random and gruesome murders by a fabled headless horseman, the story plays out as if it were purposely trying to be repugnantly predictable. Contrived as a children's bedtime story, humdrum character introduction is laced with intended-upon exciting non-engaging chase scenes which, with undeveloped characters fleeing for their lives, produce about as much fright and thrill as The Nightmare Before Christmas.<br /><br />Toss in an endless bundle of old trees for ambience and a wide-eyed, big-busted blonde love interest (Christina Reechi) and Burton has himself a movie that takes the age-old legend of Sleepy Hollow and succeeded in making it like a Disney movie without the charm or captivation. Dialog was choppy and ridiculous, severed heads were aplenty, and there were enough plot-revealing monologues to embarrass the likes of James Bond. Even with the backing of Emmanuel Lubezki, the most sought-after cinematographer in Hollywood today, the wonderful acting of Depp and Burton's astounding name-recognition, Sleepy Hollow is nothing to lose your head over.

While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers. <br /><br />"The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted – to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four. <br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")

Anna Kokkinos' success with' Head On' now begins to look like it depended totally on the script and Alex Dimitriades great lead performance. The degree to which this latest, "The Book of Revelation" is both derivative , pretentious and utterly unoriginal ( except for Tristan Milani's fine cinematography) seems to bear this out. . <br /><br />Alas, there have already been quite a few Aussie movies dealing with such themes , some reviled for 'sexism' (and/or explicit sex scenes) in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond and maybe they're worth looking at again after this piece of fluff. Of course, setting the whole thing in the world of ballet and making it all achingly slow (and in its choreography, like a 1960s Dutch Ballet experimental number) does suggest Great Art if you've not traveled around much-and then only if you never progressed beyond Art Theory 101.<br /><br />Add to the pretension, appallingly arch dialog ( "you will do as we command...") and the whole shebang falls onto its well funded face. Then there are the 'sexy' bits : straight from Dario Argento.<br /><br />Given the lovely but truncated performance by Colin Friels - how about a real city primeval thriller ?<br /><br />All in, all ,with 'The Book of Revelation' , the feminist project has been set back yet another decade - and with the willing and deeply imitative (of male writers like Henry Miller, William Burroughs, even Bukowski) collaboration of some collective in Melbourne, Oz, suffering from a form of educational -and ideological- amnesia! No revelations await us here.

I'm shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.

Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant.

I can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.<br /><br />I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.<br /><br />Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0/10 (and that's being generous)

TANDEM is an odd slice in the Japanese pink genre-as it has the requisite sex-scenes and misogynistic tone that is all but required for these types of films-but also throws in a disjointed drama/dark-comedy storyline that seems like it'd have been better suited for a different type of film. <br /><br />The film starts with two lone guys at a restaurant-each daydreaming about a previous sexual encounter. One is a mutual subway groping, the other a pretty typical (for this type of film) semi-rape scenario. The two pervs meet and start talking after one lends the other a cigarette. They hang out for an evening and talk a bit about their respective sex- lives. The film is inter-cut with flashback scenes of both of the men's interactions with the women that are central in their lives. The two men have a falling out and the film ends on a weird but predictable note... <br /><br />I really don't know what to make of TANDEM. It sorta comes off as a soft-core, 'odd couple' type of anti-buddy-film, but doesn't really explore the subject-matter to any satisfying degree. There's also not much of the typical extreme sleaziness often so prevalent in these types of films-so I can't really figure out what the point was. I also cant quite tell if the film was supposed to be funny, depressing, or both.  I think that TANDEM could have had some potential as a more serious drama film with a dark-comedy edge- but as a soft-core sex film that tries to be too 'smart' for its own good-it just doesn't work.   Can't say I hated this one-but can't say there's anything notable about it either. 4/10 

A whole lot of the people that have seen this are confused, obviously. The original title of "Cottonmouth Joe" would've put things into better perspective for much of the viewing audience. I have personally experienced the condition of cottonmouth (often accompanied by a really bad hangover after a weekend bender) and it is indeed a lot like the movie Skeleton Man -- a dry, scummy film that provokes regret for recent choices and begs for a hot shower.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that the choice of "Skeleton Man" for the title was finalized by the distributor (probably the work of some meddling Hollywood no nothing studio exec who just didn't get it) and not "Cottonmouth Joe." Those of us who have seen the film know that the Skeleton Man is actually Cottonmouth Joe (a skeletal-manish apparition, not a true Skeleton Man). The deception of the folks marketing this film is unforgivable, and for that alone, I cannot give this film a high rating. Imagine this: when future filmmakers get together to create the true definitive Skeleton Man movie and need a title, they will be totally screwed and we are all, as serious fans of the genre, diminished for that.<br /><br />Cottonmouth Joe could've become a horror movie icon right up there alongside Madman Marz, Black Claw, Mansquito, Humongous, "Nature Boy" Billy Conners, Morty the wooden doll, the Boogen, Eegah, The Moon Beast, Bloody Bill, the Driller Killer, Mickey Rooney, and so forth, but he will always be remembered as a sword wielding-caped-tackle dummy skull face-tied to the side of a horse-skeleton man wannabe.<br /><br />That's too bad.

Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.

This may contain ***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.<br /><br />There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.<br /><br />When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.<br /><br />All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.

I enjoy films of various kinds and qualities. Whether it's your typical standard Hollywood action movie or your Oscar season tear-jerker, movies that meet a certain standard will almost always be enjoyable for me.<br /><br />In Soap Girl, I received nothing but confusion. First, we meet Maya, a massage parlor worker who seems to attract all the customers in the parlor. A virgin poet named Harry comes in one day and they fall in love. After that, there are various twists and turns thrown into the plot which seem to lead nowhere.<br /><br />Although many have commented on the controversial issue of an Asian prostitute being exploited by the white man, keep in mind that this film was made by an Asian director who wanted to bring light to the issue. But whether he succeeds or not does not matter, for the issue at hand is whether the movie is enjoyable or not.<br /><br />For me, Soap Girl fails to meet the standard I expect from movies. It was hard for me to get involved emotionally with this movie, given the loose plot and the mediocre acting. Worse, it seems as if the director wanted to make a drama, when the tone falls more towards comedy.<br /><br />A movie such as Soap Girl which fails to trap me into the magic of cinema will always leave me bored. Throughout the movie, I couldn't help but think, "What is this really about?" A movie has to answer that question before it is made. If not, what you'll end up with is an empty push to captivate the audience.<br /><br />Grade: D+<br /><br />

I suppose I should be fair and point out that I don't believe in ghosts. That said, I'm very interested in the subject and I enjoy a scary story as much as the next guy. I am a fan of Ghost Hunters because they at least try to give their investigations a scientific angle. Even early episodes of Most Haunted had a camp entertainment factor to them. Paranormal State has neither of these qualities. The cases themselves have the potential to be interesting, but as with so much "reality TV" these days, it suffers from overproduction, poor acting and silly scripts. The makers of the show freely admit that writers "guide" the stories. I hear they are even going to shoehorn in a romance subplot to appeal to the young female demographic. The show has many other flaws too. As others have stated, the narration quickly becomes like nails down a chalkboard. Over the top visual and audio effects quickly become just as irritating. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but this whole "demon with a vendetta" story arc is just ridiculous. Given that the producers of this show are also responsible for brain dead fodder like MTV's Laguna Beach and Newport Harbor I suppose this is really no surprise. If you are a die hard fan of Ed & Lorraine Warren or a big "reality" show junkie I guess you'll find much to like in Paranormal State. For the rest of us....I recommend you avoid.

I have seen this film 3 times. Mostly because I kept thinking while watching it, "have I missed something here?". Is there some reason this film was made? Was it trying to say something and I just missed it? Well after 3 viewings I failed to come up with an answer.<br /><br />I guess the worst thing I can say about any film is that it bored me, and I did not finish it. I will admit there is plenty of eye candy and fast editing and hip music to keep my attention all the way through but is that all a movie should be? <br /><br />I am not against extreme violence, it is almost non-stop, but it seems there should be some sort of inspiration. Something that is highlighted by it. The word gratuitous comes to mind but it is worse then that somehow. In the first part of the film we are all given insights into the motivations of the characters. And yes the 3 principles are very good in their roles. But the roles are completely unbelievable. So in the first part we get to know the characters, and in the second part most of em die and use sadistic glee in killing others. That seems to be the whole movie. And the first part has nothing to do with the second.<br /><br />For example. How could a nice smart guy like Zed agree to join a bunch of junkies and amateurs to do a job like this? It makes no sense. He is portrayed as smart, yet he goes ahead with this suicide mission. The fact that he survives is totally inconsistent with the rest of the hyper-real violence and mayhem. So what are we watching here a Hollywood romance with a happy ending or a super real, super violent blood bath? I recall having the same reaction to two other films this director was involved with: True Romance and Reservior Dogs.<br /><br />Needless dreck!

Quentin Tarantino's partner in crime Roger Avary (co-writer on "Pulp Fiction") ventures out on his own (Q.T. goes exec. prod. this time) for this over-boiled French thriller.<br /><br />Eric Stoltz is Zed, safe cracker extraordinaire who has drifted over to France from the U.S. at the request of an old friend. There he teams up with a motley crew of drugged out hippies who, with little or no planning, think they can knock off a bank vault full of gold bullion on a French national holiday.<br /><br />Avary has reworked the robbery gone wrong theme that Tarantino developed so well in "Reservoir Dogs", only "Killing Zoe" is not good enough to survive on the strength of this alone, so Avary has thrown in a rather beautiful distraction. Julie Delpy is Zoe, a student come call girl who entertains Zed on his arrival in Paris. A stunning distraction she certainly is, but nothing more.<br /><br />I guess our director wanted to add a different angle to this basic theme, but sadly the move did not help to add the depth his shallow plot so desperately needed. There was never a story in this idea, which was nothing more than that, an idea. Even the surreal journey into the seedy dives of Paris is uninspiring. I figure one would have to concede that there was never much of a movie in the story of a bunch of gangsters shooting each other up over a botched jewellery heist either, that is until you add intricate characters and snappy dialogue. "Reservoir Dogs" had it, "Killing Zoe" did not.<br /><br />Stoltz's strong interpretation of the doubtful Zed and Jean Hughes-Anglade's mad portrayal of the obsessive ring leader do nothing to lift proceedings. In short, Avary has unsuccessfully attempted to conjure entertainment out of nothing.<br /><br />Friday, September 15, 1995 - Astor Theatre