Datasets:

---

ukyh

/

imdb

like 0

Antonioni, by making this film, had assumed the role of Papa Smurf to all the little long-haired, American, radical student-Smurfs. He had taken them under the guiding protection of his European communist wings, showing appreciation and support for their confused American ways. (These Smurfs are red and wear blue, not the other way around.) The radical Smurfs were happy to get the guidance of a wise old man with gray hair who regularly preys to the God of all long-haired Smurfs, Lenin the Communist - another wise old man whose beard made the Smurfs take him even more seriously, for it symbolized something wise, though they did not quite know why they regarded the beard to have this kind of deep effect on them. Castro, another wise bearded man, has often profited from this confusion and exuded magical powers with his beard over his naive overseas admirers. (Not to mention Che Guevara: that beard has a certain je-ne-sais-pas-quoi about it, makes one want to immediately embrace Marx and his lovely, pacifistic teachings…) The film starts with a muddled meeting of radically stupid radical students, who engage in dialogues that truly redefine the word "confused". As confused as a blind-folded dog falling of a high-story building into a bottomless pit. Suddenly, the movie's "hero" (well, Antonioni's hero) rises up and says something to his pathetic left-wing peers and then leaves, hoping that this display of "mega-coolness" will improve his James Dean image and vastly increase his chances of getting laid with the best "chicks" in the next mass hippie orgy. Eventually he gets into trouble with cops (i.e. pigs) at a rally, and spends the movie under the blue American capitalist skies, looking for freedom… Or something like that.<br /><br />Antonioni's predictable assault on capitalism is not only intellectually hollow, but has (or had) nothing new to offer; it's just the same old trigger-happy one-dimensional cops, businessmen discussing business deals (and what's wrong with that, isn't that how Antonioni's movies get made?), and endless shots of TV commercials and billboards advertising the oh-so morally decadent products for the abhorrent, selfish, and greedy right-wing rabble-population who thinks of no one but themselves, their families, their work, and their children.<br /><br />Papa Smurf Antonioni, just like his long-haired Smurfs and Smurfettes of the late 60s, failed to notice the most obvious and vital aspect about their silly movement: they were allowed to have their laughable meetings and express their anti-establishment opinions freely within that very establishment, whereas the students in those countries whose left-wing systems they admired, did not (and still do not). By far the greatest irony about the hippies - and Antonioni, naturally, failed to realize this as well (his judgment being clouded by cocaine-snorting and an excessive intake of LSD) - is that hippies were (are) the garbage-residue of capitalism. This is an incredible irony. Only in a successfully-functioning capitalist system can you find that species called "hippie"; a spoiled, ungrateful, and selfish bunch of middle and upper-middle class losers.<br /><br />The film itself seems to go on forever. Antonioni takes his sweet time with getting on with it, while including overlong scenes of pointlessness, with a high dullness factor. His attempts at symbolism are annoying and trite. His statements are highly dubious, at best. This film is Antonioni's way of saying that violent revolution is the solution. And this is what we get from an old, saturated, filthy-rich, fat film-maker who lives in villas and dines in the best French and Italian restaurants.<br /><br />I don't remember seeing any major Western movie about the Tiananmen massacre of thousands of students in China. But when one Western student gets shot for waving Che Guevara's face into all our faces, we get ten major films about it at once. I suppose this means that a Chinese life is worth a thousand times less than a Western one – at least to the left-wing hypocrites who infest movies.<br /><br />If you're a Marxist neo-hippy and disliked this awful review, please klick "NO" below.

First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses.

Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.

'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.<br /><br />There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.<br /><br />Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.<br /><br />The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.<br /><br />While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.<br /><br />- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au

There is a word for this sort of film, and that word is "drivel." It was drivel when it was a VHS rental, and it's drivel on satellite re-runs now.<br /><br />It might fool you, because it has 2 moderately well-known names in Kistofferson and Henriksen, reasonable soundtrack music, and nice Monument Valley scenery.<br /><br />It also has some curly haired woman who fights a lot.<br /><br />If that's all you want from a movie, then maybe this will keep you happy.<br /><br />It's still drivel, though.

I like bad movies. I like to rent bad movies with my friends and rip on them for their duration. Then there are abhorrent movies like this. Redline is not just a bad movie, but a telling sign that maybe the American movie industry should please, for the sake of the viewer, at least proofread scripts before funding a movie.<br /><br />If a stereotype took a crap, this movie would spawn from that. The storyline is unbearable, and the acting all around is laughable. Nadia Bjorlin and Eddie Griffin have, perhaps, the worst screen chemistry I've seen in a good while, and even individually they should be isolated from humanity and beaten with a bag of oranges until they change their profession to street merchants (about the only thing they can legitimately qualify for). Furthermore, how Angus Macfadyen got convinced to do this movie is so far beyond me that I can't even think of an analogy. I am a loyal fan of his, but this has made me question him.<br /><br />To sum it up. Several people want revenge for different reasons (and if you care enough to know what they are, you're a bigger person than me), so much so that it turns to violence (I guess). The movie is like Ouroboros, the snake that swallows its own tail, in that it's an endless cycle of confusion and dialogue not fit for human ears. This movie is essentially one big car commercial for the first half, and an indecipherable action movie for the rest, it should be avoided at any and all costs.<br /><br />I wish I could find one positive aspect to this movie, and I think it lies in the fact that eventually the credits do roll.<br /><br />P.S. Nadia Bjorlin, if that was YOU singing those two songs in this movie, then you are a hack, and I hope old age ravages you.<br /><br />P.S.S. If you DO rent this movie looking for a laughable experience, listen for the lyrics to Nadia Bjorlin's awesome songs.

Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.<br /><br />Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is "avant-garde" or just "stupid." Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.<br /><br />This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie.

This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, "I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.<br /><br />Don't waste your time people. Trust me.<br /><br />My rating: 0/5.0

Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads.

THE IMMORTALIZER was, uh, interesting. It certainly didn't kill me during its hour and a half duration, but it didn't impress me much either. A group of kids are abducted in an alley by musclehead mutants (in a scene featuring cinema's least convincing head crushing sound effect) and taken to a fancy house in the suburbs. Here Dr. Divine and his team are performing brain transplants for his rich old patients so they can have young bodies again. Hey, this was quietly remade with a big budget a few years later as FREEJACK! Who knew that when you transplant an old person's brain into a different body that their new voice will sound exactly like their old voice? With all this talk of pineal glands and the use of a glowing green serum, you can almost see visions of FROM BEYOND and RE-ANIMATOR dancing in the producers' heads. But the production literally doesn't have the guts to pull it off. I've never understood why, when someone is making a low budget horror film, that they don't pack it to the edge of the frame with gore. The acting is uniformly terrible, with the only good performance coming from Clarke Lindsley as the assistant Dr. Price. He has a nice evil laugh. The only other thing of note about THE IMMORTALIZER is that it features lots of old people doing their own stunts. Seriously, most of the cast takes some serious bumps for old folks.

I've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.<br /><br />The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.<br /><br />A missed opportunity.

Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.

Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.<br /><br />This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.<br /><br />What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.<br /><br />The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).<br /><br />The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed.

Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****

Actually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.

Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br />

I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go. <br /><br />The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.<br /><br />I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.

Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering...

When they killed off John Amos's character they killed the show. He was the vital part of the info structure. You had a story of an inner city family's struggling to make it the best way they knew how. They were poor, they were black, and they were living proof that if you have Jesus and your family that nothing is too hard. Sure James would lose jobs and JJ would fail in school but the family always managed to find a way. <br /><br />James was the strong male role model that earned the income and disciplined the children. Florida was the strong lady that would everyone including James when he needed a shoulder to cry on or hug to make it. The kids had personalities and input which made them important as a family unit. Their neighbor Willona was also a key element because she represented not only a friend but some dear enough to be family. Things were bright, gritty, funny, and honest until they changed the course of the program. James dies and JJ took over the show. <br /><br />Flo was still mom, Thelma was blossoming into a lady and Michael was still the militant midget but JJ was the show. We were expected to believe that the family with no father or prominent bread winner was going to be able to stay in the apartment. I guess James's paycheck didn't do much for the family. They were only threatened with eviction because they said they were moving and not because no one in the house was working. I know that JJ, Flo, Thelma and even Michael eventually got jobs but come on here be for real. James worked so much that you could feel for him but the others weren't realistic at all and that's a shame.<br /><br />JJ was the comic relief but I felt the show need substance. It's OK to be funny but they had a chance to show a real family and what it took to survive in the real world and they threw it all away on a few laughs. Michael's character almost disappeared while the rest of the cast slipped into the shadows of the JJ Evan's show. I mean really, here was a guy that was failing in school, he kept getting laid off, and he painted for money in about two episodes. James had always been there to encourage his talent but Flo and the rest of the family didn't seem to care.<br /><br />Why did it take him so long to understand that painting was what he was meant to do? He could have sold painting's on the street or worked for people that print billboards and cards. (He did but something went wrong with that.) Why did he not make it and why did the others give up on their dreams? I'll tell you why, it was because they didn't have a father in their life to care and to cheer them on and their mother stopped being their to support their dreams. The show stopped teaching us about growing, building and learning and started teaching us about gimmicks and catch phrases. They should have kept James. If any show needed a father it was that one.

This film just goes to prove that not every film made during the glory days of Hollywood is worth seeing. Just because you've got an excellent ensemble cast doesn't mean that this can overcome a script that was probably written by a chimp! Think about it--the film featured Richard Widmark, Lauren Bacall, Charles Boyer, Gloria Graham, Lillian Gish and Paul Stewart and yet it still was a bad film! The basic premise of the film isn't bad--a private psychiatric hospital where the staff are more screwed up than the patients! Also, the subplot involving the overworked husband and wife (Widmark and Graham) had a lot of promise. However, the script was handled with all the finesse and deftness of a drunk buffalo--with bellicose and way over the top scenes again and again in the film. In fact, it was less like a drama and more like a very bad episode of "General Hospital". Subtle, this film ain't!! Realistic, this film ain't!! <br /><br />While most of the reason this film reeked was the awful script, but I also blame the producers as well for miscasting and misusing come veteran actors. For example, Paul Stewart may not be a household name but this character actor had exceptional talent--especially when playing gangsters in Film Noir movies. Yet here, Stewart is cast as a very nondescript psychiatrist with some bizarre European accent--it just didn't work since this was well outside his acting range and his character was totally undeveloped and one-dimensional. Also, Charles Boyer just seemed hopelessly miscast and totally out of place. Seeing this fine romantic actor as a psychiatrist in the heartland of America just seemed bizarre.<br /><br />Overall, this is a rather awful film. It is very watchable in a train wreck sort of way but it certainly isn't very pretty. My wife and I disliked much of the movie but also felt it could have been very good had the writing been competent.<br /><br />PS--In a case of art imitating life, Oscar Levant played one of the patients. In real life, the brilliant Levant spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions.

What do you call a horror story without horror and story? <br /><br />This is the most irritating thing about the film: I get the feeling the writers never really decided what's actually going on in the film! It's a different thing to know it, give hints for the audience and not completely reveal it, but here, you get the feeling the screenwriters don't know it, characters in the film do not know it and audience sees that no one knows! (Remember "Cube"? Even that film knew more about itself.) <br /><br />I've consumed a lot of 80's horror / gore films and this movie certainly has its roots deep in those films. But a lot of important things are missing. We really know nothing about the characters. They keep repeating empty lines over and over again. The story isn't really developing - it never goes anywhere. B-acting is OK in this type of horror films, but there's not much to act in the script. We don't care about the characters. There's nothing to remember about them. There's not even cheesy humor or unnecessary sex. And most importantly - no thrills, no chills.<br /><br />You only get some commonly used elements of the horror film genre. They show the Lordi monsters one by one but their characters don't really contribute anything for the story.<br /><br />I honestly believe that this amount of story, character development and atmosphere could be achieved with minimal amount of crew and equipment. Oh yeah, film makers used to do that - and more - some 20 years ago! I felt the shared embarrassment of the audience as the film ended. Too bad really.

The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'

I read the back of the box and it talked about Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. I thought, "wonderful! This will be great!" I was so wrong. The story was all screwed up. In fact I still don't get it. It just seems to me that all the characters did was drink, smoke (opium?) and have sex. Not that those aren't good movie qualities, but please! Where was the story? I made myself finish the movie, and yes, it did pick up towards the end, but by then the movie was almost over. Rent it if you really want to. Just don't trust the back of the box.

When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards… let's give it a chance…" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere… It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction… The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's… The acting should have been better too… Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production… I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!

As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.<br /><br />The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.<br /><br />All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...

This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.<br /><br />There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.<br /><br />The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.<br /><br />Skip this bogus thing.

It really doesn't matter that Superman comic books are unbelievably naive and their target is ten year old. What matters is that "Superman Returns" is bad movie. <br /><br />In the beginning,a question for You Dear Readers, how many of You actually believe that Superman will be defeated by bald Kevin Spacey? Anyone? Just as I thought. No spoilers here. So let's get to some major issues right now.<br /><br />Firstly, this movie looks like commercial (scene in the bar with Superman/Clark Kent drinking Budweiser is only scene which looks as it supposed to). Imagine commercial of Superman, two and half hour long. Let's be serious this isn't "Amadeus" or "The Departed". You actually feel, that this movie is way too long. And special effects are not so special by the way.<br /><br />Secondly, scenario is silly. Sometimes even if something is acceptable in comic, in cinema it looks just stupid. And it's like that in this case. Of course dialogs are disgrace. I can't believe somebody took money to write them. How many times we will be fed with villain making speeches? How many times laws of physics will be raped? (Jesus, it's not only the matter of Superman's strength but also a resistance of materials his dealing with.) How many times Lois Lane will be fooled by Kent? How many times Hollywood producers will seek for a story in a trashy comic books? Since there's hard to make a good story, why having a weak story for a starter? It just doesn't work. Guys, get a grip. Try harder, please. Or just stay on this strike forever, who cares. I got the feeling that WGA is permanently on strike. No offense. I'm not questioning the lame money those people are paid, but the quality of the product they deliver. In this case there is no quality at all. (At this point You may ask yourself: is it that bad? Yes it is.)<br /><br />Thirdly, acting is weak, which is quite a surprise since Bryan Singer (Usual Suspects) is directing. Kevin Spacey is having fun, but he's the only one. Audience is rather not in the mood for jokes. Thing is that comic book hero can be developed into real personality, with clear motivations but also with doubts, fears, some depth. In this case nobody did that job, and characters aren't really interesting.<br /><br />Finally, whole effort of creators turns this movie into parody. Second unit is so bad that attracts attention, since there's nothing interesting going on on screen anyway. The harder they try (if they try), the funnier it gets (but it isn't laugh You could expect).<br /><br />Final conclusion? One word: shame. <br /><br />This particular movie, ladies and gents, is camp. Don't waste Your time and don't waste Your money too. Stay home, read a book.

This is an incomprehensible horribly low budget piece of awfulness.<br /><br />I don't even have the vocabulary to say how dire, turgid, boring, confusing, and just plain strange this effort is (Hey what d'ya know I do....) Set in a post-Apocalyptic America some guys meet on a beach and slaughter and chaos ensue - it was all so incomprehensible I couldn't make head or tail of any of it.<br /><br />Seriously how this got picked up by National Lampoon totally defeats me: it really is awful.<br /><br />And not in a its so bad it's good cult way.<br /><br />It is just awful, awful, awful, awful.<br /><br />Honestly. If you still don't believe me then watch it with every intention of loving it then come back here and tell me what you think. Even gerbils on acid couldn't hope to understand this.<br /><br />Avoid or even better destroy...

I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.

Diana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of dumb and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty relieved. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty silly and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, pick a different episode.

If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.

At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.<br /><br />I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.<br /><br />3/10

I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from ****

I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.

Mild SPOILERS contained herein. I'm spoiling this film to save you the trouble of having to watch it. <br /><br />Jet Li's movies fall into one of two categories: Shaolin period movies and movies set in modern-day Hong Kong revolving around Triads or Triad like organizations. Each genre has its best and worst films. `Twin Warriors' is Jet Li's best Shaolin era flick while `The Evil Cult' is his worst. `Fist of Legend' while in the recent past is the best `modern era' Jet Li movie. `Black Mask' without a doubt is the worst.<br /><br />Jet Li plays a self-exiled mercenary who received an injection that gives him superhuman ability, but shortens his life span. In his `new life' in exile he plays a pacifist librarian. When his old mercenary squad goes on a rampage, Jet Li becomes a vigilante determined to stop them. He dons a very silly corrugated cardboard mask so as to conceal his identity from the police (and public) as a librarian, as well as to conceal his true identity to his ex-comrades in arms.<br /><br />The version I saw was dubbed, and horribly at that. Why does Jet Li capture and hold hostage his library co-worker if he's a pacifist? Is there a love story between them? Why does the police chief not care when he learns of the Black Mask's true identity? The plot is just plain BAD. Bad by way of the superhero cheesiness, bad in the sense that characters are never properly developed, bad in its character interactions, all topped off by a half-explained story I quickly lost interest in. <br /><br />The action and martial arts sequences are way over the top. Lots of blood, gore (severed body parts aplenty), explosions, and Matrix style superhuman martial arts fiascos are present in the film. Unfortunately this is the films best and only selling point. If you want to see Jet Li playing a vigilante superhero in a Mission Impossible style movie `Black Mask' delivers. For the rest of us Jet Li fans it is a true disappointment. This is one of those movies where Jet Li never gets to be Jet Li: he gets neither the chance to charm us with his charisma, nor a chance to impress us with his impressive yet realistic martial arts ability. <br /><br />Normally a Chinese knockoff of Ozzy Osbourne would be enough to engross me in a film, sadly `Black Mask' proved to be an exception to that rule. Indeed the antagonist of this movie, by the way he dresses, his long straight hair, and trademark round sunglasses looks like the modern and aged Ozzy Osbourne. However the villain isn't on-screen long enough to make the gimmick worthwhile. I am assuming the likeness to Ozzy was intentional; in addition to the villain's look, he also ran a satanic looking hideout. So much more could have been made from the Ozzy Osbourne villain gimmick! If only the writer, director, or ANYONE had bothered to give a background to and develop the character of the film's arch villain!<br /><br />`Black Mask' was the first Jet Li film released on video in the USA after Lethal Weapon 4, and I'm glad I stayed away from it until now. It may well have ruined my whole perception of Jet Li as a martial artist and actor. If you want to see Jet Li at his worst, rent `Black Mask' and `The Evil Cult' and make it a double feature or horror, both intentional and unintentional. Otherwise stick to moves that utilize the talents of Jet Li, and have plots that are semi-well thought out and plausible. 3/9 stars.

Despite, or perhaps in part because of the clever use of music to underscore the motivations and ideologies of each of the major characters, stereotypes are in, and verisimilitude and characterization are out in this not-too-subtle cinematic screed.<br /><br />One gets the sense that John Singleton was dabbling in post-structuralist literary theory because it was the flavor of the day, and "Higher Learning" was the tendentious result. The low point of the movie is the "peace" rally, in which the symbols of the 1960s "free love" movement are reappropriated for what much more closely resembles a "Take Back The Night" rally with live, stridently identity-conscious musical acts in tow. Perhaps in his prim revisionism the director was trying to assert that identity politics is the new Vietnam? Ooh, how Adrienne Rich of him—and Remy's firing into the crowd is a nice touch, if you're into Rich's sort of political posturing.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie negative stars. I can recommend it only to those interested in the 1990s as history, a time when radical feminists brought the academic trinity of race, class, and gender to popular culture and declared man-hating "a viable and honorable POLITICAL option". Where's Camille Paglia when you need her?

This is one really bad movie. I've racked my brain and I cannot come up with one positive comment to make. The acting is atrocious. I've seen more believable performances on cable access. The plot is ridiculous. Stolen diamonds, secret recordings of the President, and a shark that attacks anything that gets near it should have made for cheesy fun at the worst. Night of the Sharks isn't even so bad it's good. The dialogue sounds and is delivered as if it were written seconds before it's filmed. And to top it off, Night of the Sharks has the worst soundtrack I've ever heard. I'm surprised my ears didn't start bleeding from the 80s techno synthesized sounds that someone actually bothered to record.<br /><br />From everything I've read, the Italian film industry was dead by 1987. Night of the Sharks is like a final nail in the coffin.

Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.

So far Nightmares and Dreamscapes has been erratic and disappointing. The first segment, directed by Brian Henson, may have offered little in the way of groundbreaking storytelling or real scares, but at least it was well-directed, suspenseful, and visually interesting, with solid acting by William Hurt and very impressive special effects for a mini-series.<br /><br />However, the second story in the series was just dreadful, and not in the good way. The screenplay is bad, requiring the shallow, unlikable protagonists to act illogically in order to move the plot, and having characters ramble on endlessly for the purposes of clunky, unnecessary exposition. The acting is overdone and unconvincing, and I felt far more empathy for a cold-blooded killer in the first story than for the newlywed couple in the second. The director used a million tricks to try to make the narrative spooky, but with the amateurish acting and writing, the end result looks like a freshman-year film school project, with camera moves for their own sake, and little in the way of plot or tension.<br /><br />If the rest of the series continues like this, I'll be sorely let down. I look forward to William H. Macy's installment, and hope he gets a decent director and screenwriter for his segment. So far the quality is far too inconsistent to predict either way.

At least among those movies with 100 votes or more. Nominated for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Brenda Blethyn nominated for best actress in a leading role?? Nominated for best picture?? I always disagree with many of the Oscar picks, but this movie might very well be the worst movie of all time to be honored by the Academy. The writing and acting were both horrible. Blethyn's perfomance in particular was one of the worst I've ever seen, and probably the most over-rated acting performance of all time. Awful movie, not worthy of the big screen and not worthy of any cable or television channel that has ever played it, including HBO(where I saw it). I am only thankful I didn't actually pay to see one of the most over-rated movies of all time.

Just okay horror film about a nice suburban family dealing with the death of their parents and the "thing" in the basement that they keep feeding people they pick up off the street. Of course there is more to it then that but to say more would be telling.<br /><br />For me this just didn't come together as it tries to have it two ways both as a family drama and a horror film. the film tries very hard to walk the cutting edge between the two genres but seems more to stumble all over the place as it tries to be shocking, something it never really is. It doesn't help that the final revelation is less a scare then an "oh", as on "Oh thats it?". Maybe if I hadn't been watching so many horror films recently this might have been better or it may have just seemed it since I wouldn't have compared it to so much.<br /><br />I'd take a pass

I wasted my time and gave this show a chance. This has to be one of the worst new shows. If they gave an award to shows that suck THIS one should sweep the category. The acting is poor and the story line is contrived. Now Dinosaurs was a bit strange but at least it was entertaining. That show lasted three seasons and was finally scraped. This new show, based on an insurance companies commercials, is not funny and really has nothing going for it. Possibly the original commercials and the amount of times they were, and still are, repeated is what is wrong with this show. It just came to TV and already we are tired of seeing the "caveman" characters.

This film was a disaster from start to finish. Interspersed with performances from "the next generation of beautiful losers" are interviews with Bono and The Edge as well as the performers themselves. This leaves little time for the clips of Leonard Cohen himself, who towers over everyone else in the film with his commanding yet gentle presence, wisdom and humor. The rest are too busy trying to canonize him as St. Leonard or as some Old Testament prophet. Many of the performances are forgettable over-interpretations (especially Rufus & Martha Wainright's) or bland under-achievements. Only Beth Orton and Anthony got within striking distance of Leonard's own versions by using a little restraint. Annoying little pseudo-avant-garde gestures are sprinkled throughout the film- like out of focus superimpositions of red spheres over many of the concert and interview shots, shaky blurred camera work, use of digital delay on some of Leonard Cohen's comments (making it harder to hear what's being said) and a spooky, pretentious low drone under a lot of the interview segments (an attempt at added gravitas?). For the real thing, see the Songs From The Life Of documentary produced by the BBC in 1988.

You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This "epic" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny "wisecracks" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.<br /><br />"A Yank in Libya" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC "extravaganza" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.

This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.<br /><br />If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.<br /><br />I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.

there are those movies that are bad they are funny, then there are those where you scream "i want that one and a half hours of my life back"...thats pretty much what this is.<br /><br />dean cain tries to be an actor but fails. the sfx are really bad (repeated scenes and rocks that look like falling paper) and the fake plastic guns that have torches taped on them...the split screen effect used to show multiple things happening at once is just terrible.<br /><br />this movie cant even be used as one of those simple night entertainers, its just that bad<br /><br />if i could go negative ratings, i would

When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.

This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!

This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.

It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either.

The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!<br /><br />Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.<br /><br />So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, "They Live" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.<br /><br />I give it 4 out of 10.

Seriously. I just wrapped up my first viewing of Demonicus and words have failed me.<br /><br />I remember a time when I would see Charles Band's name on a film and my heart would race. He was never a Wes Craven or a John Carpenter. He was a bastion of hope for the little man. The guy whose movies arrived at the video store instead of the multiplex, but they still rocked harder than most of the trendy junk we otherwise had to endure.<br /><br />And now... this.<br /><br />A painfully-obvious Californian walking trail doubles for "the Alps" and an abandoned train tunnel is actually supposed to be "an ancient cave". I mean, they didn't even try to dress the thing up with moss or film it in a way that might suggest it was anything other than an old train tunnel! Ugh! Instead of a creepy demon gladiator, as the cover implies, we're treated to a dude wearing the latest in Wal-Mart Halloween apparel. There's a pretty cool looking corpse, who occasionally comes to life to belch and wiggle his fingers, but he doesn't even learn to stand until the final five minutes. Why couldn't he be the villain? Instead, we've got frat boy Joe with a plastic sword. Ouch.<br /><br />Charles Band... you should be ashamed that your name is attached to such tripe. I love movies that are so bad, they're good. Hell, I occasionally enjoy a flick thats so bad, its just bad. This one, however, is just unwatchable. A perfect example of making a buck, rather than making a quality film.

First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.

This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.

Of the ten actors who portrayed Philo Vance in the series, Edmund Lowe seemed the most personable, but in this script the audience is way ahead of the famed detective. After all, when the jockey, Douglas Walton, stares blankly in space, obviously hypnotized, and says something like "I must ride and be killed," I felt it was dumb that no one picked up on it after he does get killed. The police thought it was a suicide because he said he would do it! After hated horse owner Gene Lockhart gets shot and killed, Frieda Inescort does the same thing, saying she's going out to be killed, and then fatally jumps off a bus. I laughed when Lowe finally yells "I got it," as though it were a revelation. The guilty party, however, was cleverly concealed and there was considerable suspense generated when that party starts to hypnotize Lowe to get him to jump off a roof.

I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.<br /><br />This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.<br /><br />Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.

One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:<br /><br />1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!<br /><br />Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year.

Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10

First of all; it's very dilettantish to try describe way of history only from positions of guns, germs and steel. The same tried to do Marxists from economical positions.<br /><br />The reason of Western success can't be just dumb luck, the advantages of domesticated plants and animals. We see, that all around the world any advantages and bonuses are complete useless if they aren't wisely managed. In the Japan there isn't huge natural resources, but Japan is one of the top world economies, the same situation in Singapore, but in Nigeria, country with rich oil resources, there are only middle-low success. Both of this nations had and still have access to Western technology and inventions, but why such gap? <br /><br />In the end of movie Daimond declared, that it's very important to understand factors of guns, germs and steel, to UNDERSTAND. Maybe the main factor of world's difference is not geography, but people ability to understand and use things? The mental ability to understand. And in this case geography is only subordinated.

Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1

I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.<br /><br />I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.<br /><br />Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.

For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.<br /><br />Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.<br /><br />Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.

I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give.

Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.<br /><br />It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.<br /><br />There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.<br /><br />The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better. <br /><br />In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.<br /><br />

That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot. <br /><br />What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong. <br /><br />I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job.

I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.<br /><br />I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?<br /><br />That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.<br /><br />I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!<br /><br />I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.

This movie was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see this film.

This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.<br /><br />In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....<br /><br />There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.<br /><br />Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them.

This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.<br /><br />First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.<br /><br />This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.<br /><br />This was worse than watching a car wreck.

In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.<br /><br />"Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.<br /><br />Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.<br /><br />While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.<br /><br />The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.<br /><br />Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.<br /><br />"Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10

I am not from America and I know what 'Wife Swap' is. When a show came out of that name I was thrilled to see some cool glamorized sexual moments from the program. But what I got was a real sucking stupidity. I was misjudged by its title name, it has no adult contents, no nudity, not even vulgar dialogues (broad casted threw Hallmark channel and I think they edited/mute out such contents to make it neat).<br /><br />A show which gives a picture of current American/western family state, overweight chubby peoples, polluted teenagers, and their sucking family goings. In each episode two wives/two mothers (more correctly) were chosen to live in each others home and re-changes each others family routine with their new own rule. Sometimes its turns out to be good or more evenly bad. On the ending section each mothers are brought back with their husband and try to conclude what they did to each families past days. It's the sucking portion of the program were each contenders fights for their rights. I was sucked to see all of these instead of seeing some cool adult sex stuff. I mean who make this program, more than that who gave the name "Wife Swap"; its better to be called as "Mother Swap". All in all it corrupts all the great things the real Wife Swap stands for! <br /><br />Wife Swap = Average Sucking Reality Show.

Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.

I went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with "Der Fuhrer's Face." The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.<br /><br />There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.

The ghost of the Vietnam war has haunted the American psyche for thirty years now. If not because of the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers went MIA in Vietnam, or the manner in which those who returned were treated, then because it was the first war that America could be said to have lost. Many men came home from the war a shadow of their former selves, and the original First Blood managed to provide a small insight into their problems as they attempted to rotate back into the world, as the saying goes. First Blood Part II, on the other hand, is little more than a fist-pumping mess that goes to illustrate how sore America can be, both in victory and defeat. Stallone puts in another sluggish performance as the titular Special Forces commando, while Richard Crenna attempts to hold up the serious actor quotient. Where it all comes undone is in the script, which didn't do any better when it was called Missing In Action and starred Chuck Norris. What little semblance of logic there was in the original is now gone, as the filmmakers decide to paint a big S on Rambo's massive chest.<br /><br />The film picks up a little while after the end of First Blood. The film, that is - the novel didn't allow for the possibility of sequels. In this mediocre follow-up, Rambo has been put to work at what appears to be some sort of open-air mine. As he is breaking rocks and working up a sweat, a prison guard pulls him away to go and have a chat with Colonel Trautman, who advises him that his government is willing to offer him an early release if he goes on a covert mission. Rambo, never one to back down from a hard day's violent work, accepts, and is promptly shipped off to a covert base in what appears to be Cambodia or Thailand (I forget which). From there, he is commissioned to seek out a camp where American MIAs are supposedly being held, and photograph them. His mission quite clearly specifies that he is not to make any attempt to secure their release. Rambo being Rambo, however, has other ideas in spite of their possible political implications.<br /><br />Of course, things go somewhat awry when it turns out that the people commissioning Rambo's work have more interest in making sure no American MIAs are found. It is the age-old conspiracy theory, and makes no apologies for exploiting the plight of many an American family that was left without a son during the ten years that the official Vietnam war had been raging for. Of course, with the Jingoism that was inherent in American society during the 1980s, they could not help but work in a plot tangent about the Vietnamese army being in bed with what appears to be a single battalion of Russians. Together, the two antagonists attempt to extract what information they can from Rambo, but it backfires upon them in an orgy of bullets, arrows, rockets, and destruction. About the only thing missing is the moment when Rambo drinks from a grail-like chalice and declares himself invincible.<br /><br />To be honest, First Blood Part II is a well-photographed, and well-choreographed, action spectacle. The hand-to-hand combat with the larger Russian commander is one of the few battles in the film that has any dramatic tension whatsoever. The rest is simply a case of the lead actor and the director building a fantasy for Americans to pump their fist to. Fortunately, this fad of America über alles action films soon died down when more introspective and intelligent war films such as Platoon began doing the rounds. Some of the kills shown here are quite creative, despite all the problems. The Vietnamese commander meets an end that many an action film villain would envy. The Russian commander bites it in a manner that is as spectacular as it is ridiculous. Only in a 1980s action film would one see a LAW being used from inside a helicopter. Sure, there have been action film clichés rooted in contradictions of fact, but never this ridiculous before.<br /><br />I gave Rambo: First Blood Part II a one out of ten. It is so bad it is ridiculous, and so ridiculous that it is often funny. One doesn't even need to have served in the military to know how stupid some of the action sequences are. The only risk it takes is in trying to make a stupid political statement with what is a heartbreaking subject for those directly involved. Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek, and it might be watchable.

Piece is Cake is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:<br /><br />"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.<br /><br />"There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...<br /><br />"...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."<br /><br />Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time".<br /><br />Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.<br /><br />"Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...

Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.<br /><br />Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids??? <br /><br />Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute. <br /><br />On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.<br /><br />I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.<br /><br />I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.<br /><br />Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10.

Its unfortunate that someone decided to spin off on the best horror movies of all time in my book. This poor copy steals lots of material from the first three films going as far as even copying how persons die and what will happen in the future to the key characters and it basically tries to cram in three films into one and fails. It fails even to create a good scary atmosphere for one (except with the odd exception where the impressive choral music brings back memories of the old films).<br /><br />The only thing we can be thankful for is that there has not been an Omen V.

What I hate about this show is how poorly the leads are written. These women have no self-respect or dignity. The entire plot is them throwing themselves at guys. Amanda Bynes' talent is completely wasted. She was brilliant on "All That" and her own show. Why they would write her and Jenny Garth as vapid, airhead, desperate, men chasing, "old-maid" wannabes is beyond me.<br /><br />Their plots and dialog remind me of "The Simpons", Homer says whenever his cartoon character Poochie is not on screen, "Everyone should ask, where's Poochie?". All the talk centers on whining about some guy, and then whining to some guy. Sometimes they change it up and the guy whines instead. Then they get back together or break up at the end. The 2 women are either shallow, stupid, or sex addicts. The only word I can think of is "sucks".

A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.<br /><br />""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**<br /><br />Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. <br /><br />This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.<br /><br />When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief.

I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood "professionals" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.<br /><br />OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.

Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.

I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.<br /><br />The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.

OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...

I've seen a lot of Seagal movies, and while most aren't great, or even good, this steamy pile lowered the bar for bad movies.<br /><br />The plot: not sure really. Something about a drug that makes you all crazy and strong or something. Who are the good guys and bad guys? Hard to tell. Most of the movie is cut scenes going back and forth between people in darkly lit rooms complaining about how good Seagals character "Mashall" is.<br /><br />Acting: Blows.<br /><br />Voice Dubbing ,,,,,, What was with the horrible voice overdubbing?! Could they of found anyone who sounded any less like Seagal? May as well had Cheech or Chong doing the voice overs, might of at least been entertaining then.<br /><br />This movie is boring, and completely stupid. Avoid it at all costs!!!!

Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)…it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least – seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bow…so much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next – and thankfully unfilmed – adventure!

Seeing all of the negative reviews for this movie, I figured that it could be yet another comic masterpiece that wasn't quite meant to be. I watched the first two fight scenes, listening to the generic dialogue delivered awfully by Lungren, and all of the other thrown-in Oriental actors, and I found the movie so awful that it was funny. Then Brandon Lee enters the story and the one-liners start flying, the plot falls apart, the script writers start drinking and the movie wears out it's welcome, as it turns into the worst action movie EVER.<br /><br />Lungren beats out his previous efforts in "The Punisher" and others, as well as all of Van Damme's movies, Seagal's movies, and Stallone's non-Rocky movies, for this distinct honor. This movie has the absolute worst acting (check out Tia Carrere's face when she is in any scene with Dolph, that's worth a laugh), with the worst dialogue ever (Brandon Lee's comment about little Dolph is the worst line ever in a film), and the worst outfit in a film (Dolph in full Japanese attire). Picture "Tango and Cash" with worse acting, meets "Commando," meets "Friday the 13th" (because of the senseless nudity and Lungren's performance is very Jason Voorhees-like), in an hour and fifteen minute joke of a movie.<br /><br />The good (how about not awful) performances go to the bad guy (who still looks constipated through his entire performance) and Carrere (who somehow says her 5 lines without breaking out laughing). Brandon Lee is just there being Lungren's sidekick, and doing a really awful job at that.<br /><br />An awful, awful movie. Fear it and avoid it. If you do watch it though, ask yourself why the underwater shots are twice as clear as most non-underwater shots. Speaking of the underwater shots, check out the lame water fight scene with the worst fight-scene-ending ever. This movie has every version of a bad fight scene for those with short attention spans and to fill-in between the flashes of nudity.<br /><br />A BAD BAD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.<br /><br />Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.<br /><br />Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use.

After hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.<br /><br />I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.<br /><br />On the plus side...<br /><br />The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.<br /><br />Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...<br /><br />There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.<br /><br />Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.<br /><br />The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.<br /><br />Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.<br /><br />I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.<br /><br />There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.<br /><br />I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.<br /><br />All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch.

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

I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!

There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to "be a family again," then we don't WANT them to "be a family." What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?<br /><br />THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as "interesting." This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as "cool cause it's so far OUT, man!"). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's "the emperor's new clothes," the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .<br /><br />There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no "hidden meaning" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like "Visitor Q." Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS "Visitor Q" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this. <br /><br />There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's "cool." They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually. <br /><br />Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's "Cool" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!

Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel "The Darling Buds of May" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****

I have nothing against religious movies. Religious people need something to watch on a Saturday night, I guess. But what really ticks me off is when the write-up on the DVD box does not indicate this fact to the potential viewer. Passing off religious propaganda as entertainment is NOT cool, bro.<br /><br />And even if I was a religious person, I would have to agree with most of the other posters here, this movie was a mess. Poorly directed, poorly acted, poorly edited, and the attempt at a soundtrack was hilarious. The fake accents were terrible, the characters were mainly stereotypes, and continuity was out the window. The only reason we sat through this lame waste of time was that it was too late to watch another movie instead. Should have just gone to bed.<br /><br />Absolutely no redeeming qualities to this movie, unless you are the religious type who will immediately endorse anything that will preach your beliefs to the unbelievers, even if it's a pile of garbage. If you aren't, avoid this at all costs. Do not be deceived by the box write-up.

PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.<br /><br />CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.<br /><br />- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.<br /><br />- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.<br /><br />Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this.

Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty "let's get this over with" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.

There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.<br /><br />Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?

A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.

Loaded with fine actors, I expected much more from "Deceiver" than was delivered. The plot is extremely contrived and manipulative. The many flashbacks only add to the confusion. Believability flies out the window and with the ending becomes unbearable and downright ridiculous. I would strongly advise anyone who likes their movie plots to be based on something that is at least possible to avoid "Deceiver" because you will be very frustrated. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it, but my suspicion is that many others were totally confused by the story line and especially by the ending. Blurring the line between reality and lies simply does not work because the entire movie made no sense. - MERK

Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) thinks he has found the perfect woman in Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), who seems like a quiet but pretty woman, though he soon learns that she's needy and possessive, oh, and she's also the superhero G-Girl, though you wouldn't know it from the things she does to Matt after he freaks out and breaks up with her.<br /><br />A promising premise is ruined by a mediocre execution. My Super Ex-Girlfriend is still an enjoyable comedy however it relies too much on cheap sex jokes and it ends up being a forgettable experience. What went wrong? The cast and the director could not overcome the weakness of the script and I didn't like the way they played it out. I was expecting the guy to be a jerk and it could have been a female fantasy revenge film. However, they made the guy likable and they made the superhero a psycho. It just wasn't very fresh and after about forty minutes, the film wore out it's welcome. Sure, there were a few funny lines however the weak middle and horrible ending kept it from really breaking out.<br /><br />Director Ivan Reitman has lost his touch. After a successful run in the eighties and early nineties, he started making crap like Evolution and Father's Day. I wouldn't say My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a complete bust but I don't give him credit for any of the quality the movie holds, which isn't too much. Don Payne did an awful job with the screenplay. The majority of the jokes were lame and most of the supporting characters were just one-note. He also kept reusing a lot of the same jokes making the thing really tedious at times.<br /><br />A few of the actors were good enough to save the film. Uma Thurman was great as G-Girl and she had many funny lines. Luke Wilson was a bit pale and not very interesting. I don't think he makes for an appealing leading man and he's better in supporting roles like in The Family Stone. Anna Faris was just doing her "Scary Movie" routine and it's getting a little old. She needs a challenge or at least some better scripts. Wanda Sykes is either hit or miss for me. She was great in Monster-In-Law and she was bad in Clerks 2. Here, she is just annoying and doesn't bring anything to the movie. Eddie Izzard was alright, nothing special. Rainn Wilson was just annoying and not funny. Overall, I was disappointed with the movie. It wasn't awful yet it had so much potential and the final result was just so average. Rating 5/10