testing.txt

I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions. This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge.	1
Once again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.	0
Actor turned director Bill Paxton follows up his promising debut, the Gothic-horror "Frailty", with this family friendly sports drama about the 1913 U.S. Open where a young American caddy rises from his humble background to play against his Bristish idol in what was dubbed as "The Greatest Game Ever Played." I'm no fan of golf, and these scrappy underdog sports flicks are a dime a dozen (most recently done to grand effect with "Miracle" and "Cinderella Man"), but some how this film was enthralling all the same.<br /><br />The film starts with some creative opening credits (imagine a Disneyfied version of the animated opening credits of HBO's "Carnivale" and "Rome"), but lumbers along slowly for its first by-the-numbers hour. Once the action moves to the U.S. Open things pick up very well. Paxton does a nice job and shows a knack for effective directorial flourishes (I loved the rain-soaked montage of the action on day two of the open) that propel the plot further or add some unexpected psychological depth to the proceedings. There's some compelling character development when the British Harry Vardon is haunted by images of the aristocrats in black suits and top hats who destroyed his family cottage as a child to make way for a golf course. He also does a good job of visually depicting what goes on in the players' heads under pressure. Golf, a painfully boring sport, is brought vividly alive here. Credit should also be given the set designers and costume department for creating an engaging period-piece atmosphere of London and Boston at the beginning of the twentieth century.<br /><br />You know how this is going to end not only because it's based on a true story but also because films in this genre follow the same template over and over, but Paxton puts on a better than average show and perhaps indicates more talent behind the camera than he ever had in front of it. Despite the formulaic nature, this is a nice and easy film to root for that deserves to find an audience.	1
This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...<br /><br />Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4/10.	0
As a recreational golfer with some knowledge of the sport's history, I was pleased with Disney's sensitivity to the issues of class in golf in the early twentieth century. The movie depicted well the psychological battles that Harry Vardon fought within himself, from his childhood trauma of being evicted to his own inability to break that glass ceiling that prevents him from being accepted as an equal in English golf society. Likewise, the young Ouimet goes through his own class struggles, being a mere caddie in the eyes of the upper crust Americans who scoff at his attempts to rise above his standing. <br /><br />What I loved best, however, is how this theme of class is manifested in the characters of Ouimet's parents. His father is a working-class drone who sees the value of hard work but is intimidated by the upper class; his mother, however, recognizes her son's talent and desire and encourages him to pursue his dream of competing against those who think he is inferior.<br /><br />Finally, the golf scenes are well photographed. Although the course used in the movie was not the actual site of the historical tournament, the little liberties taken by Disney do not detract from the beauty of the film. There's one little Disney moment at the pool table; otherwise, the viewer does not really think Disney. The ending, as in "Miracle," is not some Disney creation, but one that only human history could have written.	1
I saw this film in a sneak preview, and it is delightful. The cinematography is unusually creative, the acting is good, and the story is fabulous. If this movie does not do well, it won't be because it doesn't deserve to. Before this film, I didn't realize how charming Shia Lebouf could be. He does a marvelous, self-contained, job as the lead. There's something incredibly sweet about him, and it makes the movie even better. The other actors do a good job as well, and the film contains moments of really high suspense, more than one might expect from a movie about golf. Sports movies are a dime a dozen, but this one stands out. <br /><br />This is one I'd recommend to anyone.	1
First of all I hate those moronic rappers, who could'nt act if they had a gun pressed against their foreheads. All they do is curse and shoot each other and acting like cliché'e version of gangsters.<br /><br />The movie doesn't take more than five minutes to explain what is going on before we're already at the warehouse There is not a single sympathetic character in this movie, except for the homeless guy, who is also the only one with half a brain.<br /><br />Bill Paxton and William Sadler are both hill billies and Sadlers character is just as much a villain as the gangsters. I did'nt like him right from the start.<br /><br />The movie is filled with pointless violence and Walter Hills specialty: people falling through windows with glass flying everywhere. There is pretty much no plot and it is a big problem when you root for no-one. Everybody dies, except from Paxton and the homeless guy and everybody get what they deserve.<br /><br />The only two black people that can act is the homeless guy and the junkie but they're actors by profession, not annoying ugly brain dead rappers.<br /><br />Stay away from this crap and watch 48 hours 1 and 2 instead. At lest they have characters you care about, a sense of humor and nothing but real actors in the cast.	0
Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph against the odds.<br /><br />The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in "Even Stevens" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he appears.<br /><br />A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a great movie.	1
I saw this film on September 1st, 2005 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival that screens films for their Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture "...explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that award to this film.<br /><br />This is a story of golf in the early part of the 20th century. At that time, it was the game of upper class and rich "gentlemen", and working people could only participate by being caddies at country clubs. With this backdrop, this based-on-a-true-story unfolds with a young, working class boy who takes on the golf establishment and the greatest golfer in the world, Harry Vardon.<br /><br />And the story is inspirational. Against all odds, Francis Ouimet (played by Shia LaBeouf of "Holes") gets to compete against the greatest golfers of the U.S. and Great Britain at the 1913 U.S. Open. Francis is ill-prepared, and has a child for a caddy. (The caddy is hilarious and motivational and steals every scene he appears in.) But despite these handicaps, Francis displays courage, spirit, heroism, and humility at this world class event.<br /><br />And, we learn a lot about the early years of golf; for example, the use of small wooden clubs, the layout of the short holes, the manual scoreboard, the golfers swinging with pipes in their mouths, the terrible conditions of the greens and fairways, and the play not being canceled even in torrential rain.<br /><br />This film has stunning cinematography and art direction and editing. And with no big movie stars, the story is somehow more believable.<br /><br />This adds to the inventory of great sports movies in the vein of "Miracle" and "Remember the Titans."<br /><br />FYI - There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past winners going back 70 years.	1
Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I wonder how much of a hand Hongsheng had in developing the film. I mean, when a story is told casting the main character as himself, I would think he would be a heavy hand in writing, documenting, etc. and that would make it a little biased.<br /><br />But...his family and friends also may have had a hand in getting the actual details about Hongsheng's life. I think the best view would have been told from Hongsheng's family and friends' perspectives. They saw his transformation and weren't so messed up on drugs that they remember everything.<br /><br />As for Hongsheng being full of himself, the consistencies of the Jesus Christ pose make him appear as a martyr who sacrificed his life (metaphorically, of course, he's obviously still alive as he was cast as himself) for his family's happiness. Huh?<br /><br />The viewer sees him at his lowest points while still maintaining a superiority complex. He lies on the grass coming down from (during?) a high by himself and with his father, he contemplates life and has visions of dragons at his window, he celebrates his freedom on a bicycle all while outstretching his arms, his head cocked to the side.<br /><br />It's fabulous that he's off of drugs now, but he's no hero. He went from a high point in his career in acting to his most vulnerable point while on drugs to come back somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />This same device is used in Ted Demme's "Blow" where the audience empathizes with the main character who is shown as a flawed hero.<br /><br />However, "Quitting" ("Zuotian") is a film that is recommended, mostly for its haunting soundtrack, superb acting, and landscapes. But, the best part is the feeling that one gets when what we presume to be the house of Jia Hongsheng is actually a stage setting for a play. It makes the viewer feel as if Hongsheng's life was merely a play told in many difficult parts.	1
Not even the Beatles could write songs everyone liked, and although Walter Hill is no mop-top he's second to none when it comes to thought provoking action movies. The nineties came and social platforms were changing in music and film, the emergence of the Rapper turned movie star was in full swing, the acting took a back seat to each man's overpowering regional accent and transparent acting. This was one of the many ice-t movies i saw as a kid and loved, only to watch them later and cringe. Bill Paxton and William Sadler are firemen with basic lives until a burning building tenant about to go up in flames hands over a map with gold implications. I hand it to Walter for quickly and neatly setting up the main characters and location. But i fault everyone involved for turning out Lame-o performances. Ice-t and cube must have been red hot at this time, and while I've enjoyed both their careers as rappers, in my opinion they fell flat in this movie. It's about ninety minutes of one guy ridiculously turning his back on the other guy to the point you find yourself locked in multiple states of disbelief. Now this is a movie, its not a documentary so i wont waste my time recounting all the stupid plot twists in this movie, but there were many, and they led nowhere. I got the feeling watching this that everyone on set was sord of confused and just playing things off the cuff. There are two things i still enjoy about it, one involves a scene with a needle and the other is Sadler's huge 45 pistol. Bottom line this movie is like domino's pizza. Yeah ill eat it if I'm hungry and i don't feel like cooking, But I'm well aware it tastes like crap. 3 stars, meh.	0
Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.<br /><br />Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.<br /><br />Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it.	0
A funny thing happened to me while watching "Mosquito": on the one hand, the hero is a deaf-mute and the director is totally unable to make us understand why he does what he does (mutilating mannequins...er, excuse me, corpses) through his images. On the other hand, the English version at least is very badly dubbed. So I found myself wishing there had been both more AND less dialogue at the same time! This film is stupid (funny how this guy has access to every graveyard and mortuary in his town) and lurid (where would we be in a 70s exploitationer without our gratuitous lesbian scene?). Not to mention the "romantic" aspect (oh, how sweet!)...Miss it. (*)	0
I felt this film did have many good qualities. The cinematography was certainly different exposing the stage aspect of the set and story. The original characters as actors was certainly an achievement and I felt most played quite convincingly, of course they are playing themselves, but definitely unique. The cultural aspects may leave many disappointed as a familiarity with the Chinese and Oriental culture will answer a lot of questions regarding parent/child relationships and the stigma that goes with any drug use. I found the Jia Hongsheng story interesting. On a down note, the story is in Beijing and some of the fashion and music reek of early 90s even though this was made in 2001, so it's really cheesy sometimes (the Beatles crap, etc). Whatever, not a top ten or twenty but if it's on the television, check it out.	1
This German horror film has to be one of the weirdest I have seen.<br /><br />I was not aware of any connection between child abuse and vampirism, but this is supposed based upon a true character.<br /><br />Our hero is deaf and mute as a result of repeated beatings at the hands of his father. he also has a doll fetish, but I cannot figure out where that came from. His co-workers find out and tease him terribly.<br /><br />During the day a mild-manner accountant, and at night he breaks into cemeteries and funeral homes and drinks the blood of dead girls. They are all attractive, of course, else we wouldn't care about the fact that he usually tears their clothing down to the waist. He graduates eventually to actually killing, and that is what gets him caught.<br /><br />Like I said, a very strange movie that is dark and very slow as Werner Pochath never talks and just spends his time drinking blood.	0
Being a long-time fan of Japanese film, I expected more than this. I can't really be bothered to write to much, as this movie is just so poor. The story might be the cutest romantic little something ever, pity I couldn't stand the awful acting, the mess they called pacing, and the standard "quirky" Japanese story. If you've noticed how many Japanese movies use characters, plots and twists that seem too "different", forcedly so, then steer clear of this movie. Seriously, a 12-year old could have told you how this movie was going to move along, and that's not a good thing in my book.<br /><br />Fans of "Beat" Takeshi: his part in this movie is not really more than a cameo, and unless you're a rabid fan, you don't need to suffer through this waste of film.<br /><br />2/10	0
"Tokyo Eyes" tells of a 17 year old Japanese girl who falls in like with a man being hunted by her big bro who is a cop. This lame flick is about 50% filler and 50% talk, talk, and more talk. You'll get to see the less than stellar cast of three as they talk on the bus, talk and play video games, talk and get a haircut, talk and walk and walk and talk, talk on cell phones, hang out and talk, etc. as you read subtitles waiting for something to happen. The thin wisp of a story is not sufficient to support a film with low end production value, a meager cast, and no action, no romance, no sex or nudity, no heavy drama...just incessant yadayadayada'ing. (C-)	0
This movie is amazing because the fact that the real people portray themselves and their real life experience and do such a good job it's like they're almost living the past over again. Jia Hongsheng plays himself an actor who quit everything except music and drugs struggling with depression and searching for the meaning of life while being angry at everyone especially the people who care for him most. There's moments in the movie that will make you wanna cry because the family especially the father did such a good job. However, this movie is not for everyone. Many people who suffer from depression will understand Hongsheng's problem and why he does the things he does for example keep himself shut in a dark room or go for walks or bike rides by himself. Others might see the movie as boring because it's just so real that its almost like a documentary. Overall this movie is great and Hongsheng deserved an Oscar for this movie so did his Dad.	1
Wealthy horse ranchers in Buenos Aires have a long-standing no-trading policy with the Crawfords of Manhattan, but what happens when the mustachioed Latin son falls for a certain Crawford with bright eyes, blonde hair, and some perky moves on the dance floor? 20th Century-Fox musical has a glossy veneer yet seems a bit tatty around the edges. It is very heavy on the frenetic, gymnastic-like dancing, exceedingly thin on story. Betty Grable (an eleventh hour replacement for Alice Faye) gives it a boost, even though she's paired with leaden Don Ameche (in tan make-up and slick hair). Also good: Charlotte Greenwood as Betty's pithy aunt, a limousine driver who's constantly asleep on the job, and Carmen Miranda playing herself (who else?). The stock shots of Argentina far outclass the action filmed on the Fox backlot, and some of the supporting performances are quite awful. By the time of the big horserace finale, most viewers will have had enough. *1/2 from ****	0
Cage plays a drunk and gets high critically praise. Elizabeth Shue Actually has to do a love seen with the most unattractive and overrated piece of dung flesh in Hollywood. I literally vomited while watching this film. Of course I had the flu, but that does not mean this film did not contribute to the vomit in the kamode. <br /><br />Why can't Nick Cage play something he can really pull off like a bad actor. Nick Cage who be brilliant in a role as a bad actor. Heck nobody could do it better.<br /><br />The search begins for Nick's contract with Lucifer or was it Lou Cipher from "Night Train To Terror".	0
First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of all of the actors that appear in this film and at the time that I rented it, I wanted to like it.<br /><br />I think that the main reason that I was so disappointed was that the outside box promised me a suspense thriller. In my eyes, a suspense thriller for British movies is like something out of a Ruth Rendell novel, something that has a lot of dark twist and turns and leaves the viewer with an ending that is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.<br /><br />This movie started out with the promising note of being such a film. We have our main character, that suspects a man that he does not like, of being involved in a hit and run that killed the husband of one of his servants.His notions prove to be right, but the idea that his wife might be involved, does not occur to him until that she confesses to him that she was a part of the crime.<br /><br />The elements of a good suspense thriller were in place, at this point, but from there, I felt that the film took a different direction and became almost some sort of a mild soap opera about who wants to be with who and what the love of a real relationship is. The film might have been enjoyable to me, if the outside box had talked of a twisted lover's triangle and had not been labeled as suspense thriller.This seemed to be more of a soap opera story and the beginning setting seemed to be a mild distraction to the true content of the film. I felt like this film could have done a whole lot better than it did. I felt like it kept leading the viewer up to a big event that never materialized. So, I have to give it a lower rating than I would have liked to and say that it fell short of my expectations.	0
So tell me - what serious boozer drinks Budweiser? How many suicidally-obsessed drinkers house a fully stocked and barely touched range of drinks in their lonely motel room that a millionaire playboy's bachelor-pad bar would be proud to boast? And what kind of an alcoholic tends to drink with the bottle held about 8 inches from his hungry mouth so that the contents generally spill all over his face? Not to mention wasting good whisky by dousing your girlfriend's tits with it, just so the cinema audience can get a good eyeful of Elisabeth Shue's assets.<br /><br />Cage seems to be portraying the most attention-seeking look-at-me alcoholic ever to have graced the screen while Shue looks more like a Berkely preppy slumming it for a summer than some seasoned street-walker. She is humiliated and subjugated as often as possible in this revolting movie with beatings, skin lacerations, anal rape and graphic verbal abuse - all of it completely implausible and included apparently only to convey a sense of her horribly demeaned state and offer the male viewers an astonishingly clichéd sentimental sexual fantasy of the 'tart-with-a-heart'.<br /><br />Still - I did watch it to the end, by which time I was actually laughing out loud as Shue's tough street hooker chopped carrots in the kitchen wanly, pathetically smiling while Cage - all eyes popping and shaking like like a man operating a road drill in an earthquake - grimaced and mugged his way through the final half-hour...	0
A big disappointment for what was touted as an incredible film. Incredibly bad. Very pretentious. It would be nice if just once someone would create a high profile role for a young woman that was not a prostitute. <br /><br />We don't really learn anything about this character, except that he seems to be a hopeless alcoholic. We don't know why. Nicholas Cage turns in an excellent performance as usual, but I feel that this role and this script let him down. And how, after not being able to perform for the whole film, can he have an erection on his deathbed? Really terrible and I felt like I needed a bath.	0
"Quitting" may be as much about exiting a pre-ordained identity as about drug withdrawal. As a rural guy coming to Beijing, class and success must have struck this young artist face on as an appeal to separate from his roots and far surpass his peasant parents' acting success. Troubles arise, however, when the new man is too new, when it demands too big a departure from family, history, nature, and personal identity. The ensuing splits, and confusion between the imaginary and the real and the dissonance between the ordinary and the heroic are the stuff of a gut check on the one hand or a complete escape from self on the other. Hongshen slips into the latter and his long and lonely road back to self can be grim.<br /><br />But what an exceptionally convincing particularity, honesty, and sensuousness director Zhang Yang, and his actors, bring to this journey. No clichés, no stereotypes, no rigid gender roles, no requisite sex, romance or violence scenes, no requisite street language and, to boot, no assumed money to float character acts and whims. <br /><br />Hongshen Jia is in his mid-twenties. He's a talented actor, impressionable, vain, idealistic, and perhaps emotionally starved. The perfect recipe for his enablers. Soon he's the "cool" actor, idolized by youth. "He was hot in the early nineties." "He always had to be the most fashionable." He needs extremes, and goes in for heavy metal, adopts earrings and a scarf. His acting means the arts, friends--and roles, But not the kind that offer any personal challenge or input. And his self-criticism, dulled by the immediacy of success, opens the doors to an irrational self-doubt, self-hatred-- "I didn't know how to act" "I felt like a phony"--and to readily available drugs to counter them. He says "I had to get high to do what director wanted." So, his shallow identity as an actor becomes, via drugs, an escape from identity. <br /><br />Hongshen's disengagement from drugs and his false life is very gradual, intermittent--and doggedly his own. Solitude, space, meditative thinking, speech refusal, replace therapy. The abstract is out. And a great deal of his change occurs outdoors---not in idealized locations but mainly on green patches under the freeways, bridges, and high-rises of Beijing. The physicality is almost romantic, but is not. The bike rides to Ritan Park, the long spontaneous walks, the drenching sun and rain, grassy picnics, the sky patterns and kites that absorb his musing are very specific. He drifts in order to arrive, all the while picking up cues to a more real and realistic identity. "I started to open up" he says of this period in retrospect. And the contact seems to start with his lanky body which projects a kind of dancer's positioning (clumsy, graceful, humorous, telling) in a current circumstance. If mind or spirit is lacking, his legs can compel him to walk all night. <br /><br />Central to his comeback is the rejection of set roles. To punctuate his end to acting and his determination to a new identity, he smashes his videos and TV, and bangs his head till bloody against his "John Lennon Forever" poster. He has let down his iconic anti-establishment artist---but he's the only viable guide he knows. He even imagines himself as John's son (Yoko Ono), and adopts his "Mother Mary" as an intercessor in his "hour of darkness" and "time of trouble." (the wrenching, shaking pain in the park--hallucinatory and skitzoid ordeals) "Music is so much more real than acting" he says. And speaks of Lennon's influence as "showing me a new way." In the mental institute, the life-saving apples (resistance, nourishment) reflect Lennon's presence, as does Hongshen's need to re-hang his hero's poster in his redecorated room.<br /><br />If Lennon's influence is spiriting, Hongshen's father's influence is grounding. Although father and son are both actors and users (drugs and drink), it is Fegsen's differences from his son that underwrites his change. For the father is more secure in himself: he accepts that he's Chinese, a peasant in a line of peasants, a rural theater director. And he exercises control over both his habit and his emotions. It's this recognizable identity that drives Hongshen to treat him like a sounding board, sometimes with anger and rage, sometimes with humor (the blue jeans, Beatles) and passivity. In his most crazed, and violent exchange with his father in which he accuses him of being a liar, and a fake, he exposes more of himself than his father: "all the acts I acted before were bullshit... life is bullshit." And to Hongshen's emphatic "you are NOT my father," he softly replies, "why can't a peasant be your father?" <br /><br />Under these two teachers and with much additional help from his mother, sister, friends, inmates at the rehab inst., he makes some tangible connection to a real (not whole) self. As the long term drug effects recede, so does his old identity. Indebtedness replaces pride, trust distrust. Integrity banishes his black cloud. All his edges soften. "You are just a human being" he repeats endlessly after being released from the strap-down incurred for refusing medicine. Back home, lard peasant soap is fine with him now. And his once "rare and true friendships" begin again as is so evident in the back to poignant back-to-back fence scene with his musician buddy. Hongshen says of this movie: "it's a good chance to think about my life." And I might add, become a New Actor, one bound to art and life. Like Lennon, he has gained success without a loss of identity.	1
This film is absolutely appalling and awful. It's not low budget, it's a no budget film that makes Ed Wood's movies look like art. The acting is abysmal but sets and props are worse then anything I have ever seen. An ordinary subway train is used to transport people to the evil zone of killer mutants, Woddy Strode has one bullet and the fight scenes are shot in a disused gravel pit. There is sadism as you would expect from an 80s Italian video nasty. No talent was used to make this film. And the female love interest has a huge bhind- Italian taste maybe. Even for 80s Italian standards this film is pretty damn awful but I guess it came out at a time when there weren't so many films available on video or viewers weren't really discerning. This piece of crap has no entertainment value whatsoever and it's not even funny, just boring and extremely cheap. It's actually and insult to the most stupid audience. I just wonder how on earth an actor like Woody Strode ended up ia a turkey like this?	0
Here's a decidedly average Italian post apocalyptic take on the hunting/killing humans for sport theme ala The Most Dangerous Game, Turkey Shoot, Gymkata and The Running Man.<br /><br />Certainly the film reviewed here is nowhere near as much fun as the other listed entries and is furthermore dragged down by poor voice over work, generally bland action sequences, a number of entirely tasteless scenes such as a prolonged rape sequence and some truly stupid and illogical points throughout.<br /><br />Take for example towards the end of the film, when our hero manages to infiltrate the compound of the villains. He initially kills a sentry and leaves him in his jeep. Upon discovery of the said corpse, the villains response? (bearing in mind that our hero has come to brutally murder them all) – They resolve to wait until the next morning to look for the culprit (!!!!!!!!!!)<br /><br />However, I suppose to be fair the film remains nonetheless about watchable if you can suspend your disbelief during such stupid scenes and does benefit immensely by the presence of the always excellent Woody Strode (even if his screen time is very limited)<br /><br />Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination but still just about worthy of a watch for Italian B-Movie enthusiasts.	0
I loved this movie from beginning to end.I am a musician and i let drugs get in the way of my some of the things i used to love(skateboarding,drawing) but my friends were always there for me.Music was like my rehab,life support,and my drug.It changed my life.I can totally relate to this movie and i wish there was more i could say.This movie left me speechless to be honest.I just saw it on the Ifc channel.I usually hate having satellite but this was a perk of having satellite.The ifc channel shows some really great movies and without it I never would have found this movie.Im not a big fan of the international films because i find that a lot of the don't do a very good job on translating lines.I mean the obvious language barrier leaves you to just believe thats what they are saying but its not that big of a deal i guess.I almost never got to see this AMAZING movie.Good thing i stayed up for it instead of going to bed..well earlier than usual.lol.I hope you all enjoy the hell of this movie and Love this movie just as much as i did.I wish i could type this all in caps but its again the rules i guess thats shouting but it would really show my excitement for the film.I Give It Three Thumbs Way Up!<br /><br />This Movie Blew ME AWAY!	1
At the bottom end of the apocalypse movie scale is this piece of pish called 'The Final Executioner'.. at least where I come from. A bloke is trained by an ex-cop to seek vengeance on those that killed his woman and friends in cold blood.. and that's about it. Lots of fake explosions and repetitive shootings ensue. Has one of the weirdest array of costumes I've seen in a film for a while, and a massive fortress which is apparently only run by 7 people. GREAT job on the dubbing too guys(!) Best moment: when our hero loses a swordfight and is about to be skewered through the neck, he just gets out his gun and BANG! Why not do that earlier? It's a mystery. As is why anyone would want to sit through this in the first place. I'm still puzzling over that one myself now.. 2/10	0
Earth has been destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Well, parts of the Earth, because somewhere in Italy, a band of purebred survivors--those without radioactive contamination--are holed up in a massive mansion surrounded by lush grounds, waiting for the next opportunity to go hunting for those with polluted blood. The Final Executioner is the story of one of their would be victims, Alan (William Mang, who looks, not surprisingly, a lot like Kurt Russell), and his efforts to take down the legally sanctioned hunters, who are led by Edra (Marina Costa) and Erasmus (Harrison Muller Jr. ). Alan has been trained to kill by former NYPD cop Sam (Woody Strode) who mostly hangs around giving his pupil moral support and mooching for tinned meat. Strode is by far the best thing about the film, though he doesn't look at all well and only appears for about a third of the running time. As for the story, it's a blending of elements from better films and stories, including Ten Little Indians, The Most Dangerous Game, and Escape From New York. The Final Executioner moves along at a fair pace and provides reasonable entertainment for less discriminate action fans.	0
Many people are standing in front of the house n some women are crying... Men standing in close groups and speaking in hushed up tone... a couple of guys come in and they are discussing how sexy the daughter might look today... soon u will know someone in the house has died... The dead person's wife is worried about preparing food for so many people, her friend sitting beside her gives an idea of making the matters easy by preparing simple roti sabji... One of the dead person's son is speaking with someone over the mobile, Daughter is busy with her makeup... her mother suggests her to wear salwar kameej, but the daughter is more interested in looking good when so many people will be visiting their house and hence prefers jeans and T shirt over salwar kameez... another son asks her mom to finish all the kriyas and also indicates to her that he should not be expected to come early from the office... Then the camera slowly focuses on the dead person... the white cloth covering the face is displaced slightly due to the wind, revealing the face ... Its Anupam Kher... suddenly alarm rings and he gets up from the bed... Is it his dream or a flash back? U won't get an answer until the end of the movie...Well, This is wat comedy is for the director Dibakar Banerjee!!!!! Later u find out this scene has nothing to do with the actual movie and hence making everything obvious that the still described earlier was a dream. Is this a film comedy? Well it is supposed to belong to that category... But it actually does not!!! there is nothing that can be remotely associated with comedy in the movie!!! More over the director gives the message that no one will get justice from Police!!! so everyone must cheat the cheats!!!! or forget about Justice!!!! Music by Bapi-Tutul & Dhruv Dhalla is OK... Nothing much to tell about other sectors... Bad script destroys everything... not even Anupam Kher's performance succeeds in making it at least a paisa vasool...	0
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.<br /><br />I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.<br /><br />*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****<br /><br />Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.<br /><br />I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.	1
I first saw this movie on IFC. Which is a great network by the way to see underground films. I watched this movie and was thinking it was going to be pure drama and a story line that doesn't hold water. But it really was a worth while watch. The main character is in such rough shape, and you hate to see him deny help, but no matter what you just can't hate him. His devotion to The Beatles and John Lennon is a great metaphor for his life and the helplessness he feels. <br /><br />The atmosphere of the film is also great. At times, you feel like you can see what he sees, feel what he feels in some situations. This movie does not leave you wanting to know more, or disliking a loophole in the plot. There are NO loopholes (in my opinion). I have always been a fan of foreign films, especially now with movies being made so poorly in America. I really enjoy the foreign settings because I feel it can take you on a trip, and sometimes understand a different culture. This movie did all those things to me and more. Please watch this movie and if you're new to foreign films, this is a great start.	1
New York family is the last in their neighborhood to get a television set, which nearly ruins David Niven's marriage to Mitzi Gaynor. Bedroom comedy that rarely ventures into the bedroom(and nothing sexy happens there anyway). Gaynor as an actress has about as much range as an oven--she turns on, she turns off. Film's sole compensation is a supporting performance by perky Patty Duke, pre-"Miracle Worker", as Niven's daughter. She's delightful; "Happy Anniversary" is not. * from ****	0
I must say, every time I see this movie, I am deeply touched, not only by the most painful four years of Hongsheng's life, but also by how his family deals with his drug addiction. It is also true that getting addicted to anything, such as drugs, alcohol, or pornography, cannot only hurt you, but also hurt your most important people in the world: your family. Since family is the #1 priority in the Asian culture, it takes guts for the circle to gather together and show one person how much the family loves him/her. this is actually the first Chinese movie that I actually enjoy, not for the fun of it, but the elements surrounding it (superb acting, touching story, great direction) make this movie worth watching. What stands out the most is that Hongsheng and his family act out the story themselves instead of having some B-movie actor trying to imitate the real person. It shows the genuineness of the movie.	1
My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him. <br /><br />***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.<br /><br />A must see for someone in the mental health profession!	1
The best thing about "The Prey" is the tag line..."It's not human and it's got an axe"! The movie itself is a padded stinkaroo....endless insect and wildlife shots make the viewer wanna die! No slasher fan will like this garbage.....Watch "Friday the 13th" again and burn any copy of this film you find! <br /><br />It also rates as one of the 25 worst films ever made!	0
This is truly, without exaggerating, one of the worst Slasher movies ever made. I know, it came out in the 80's following a tendency started by "Friday the 13th". "The Prey" copies the fore-mentioned movie in many aspects. The woods setting, the killer, the dumb teens, the gore, etc.<br /><br />But "The Prey" is as bad as you might expect. I didn't even remember about it if it wasn't for coincidence.<br /><br />Well, the killer is in fact human so don't expect a supernatural killer in the likes of Jason. The situations rather boring and lack of tension, gore, violence, etc. It just does not works for a slasher flick.<br /><br />The acting is simply horrid. The score is horrible! a combination of boring instruments with cheesy 80's tunes?! I won't even mention the technical aspects of the movie because believe me, it seems that it cost only 20 dollars.<br /><br />Please avoid this one like the plague. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and that's something to say. Thank God it seems to have vanished from earth.	0
I saw this film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2002. This seemed to be one of the less popular films on the festival, however, as it turned out, all the more interesting.<br /><br />The story, of an actor trying to come to grips with himself and his environment after withdrawing from a drug addiction, is based on actual facts. Moreover, the characters playing in the film are the real people living this experience over again, this time for the film, which is partly set up as a stage play. Not only do they all happen to be good actors, Jia Hongsheng's parents are actors in real life as well, the methods used in highlighting their relationship towards Jia are very effective.<br /><br />Jia Hongsheng is the actor of some Chinese action films late eighties start nineties. Later you can see him in great films such as Frozen and Suzhou River. In between these two career paths Jia becomes a drug addict and looses all drive to act or even do anything productive, except for making somewhat futile attempts at becoming a guitar virtuoso.<br /><br />I like the way the writer of the scenario choose to emphasize on his behavior after withdrawal more than on the horror of drugs. We really feel the pain and struggle Jia is in. At the same time we hate him for the way he treats those around him.<br /><br />The film draws the viewer into a tiring pattern Jia seems to be caught in, dragging with him his parents and sister who try to take care of him. Because there are personal 'interviews' with the characters we feel like we are getting to know Jia not only through himself but through others as well.<br /><br />The film has a heavy feel, but scenes of Jia cycling through Bejing and partying with his friends lighten the tone. So does the bitter humor in a lot of events throughout the film. The music is beautiful and stayed with me for a while after. This is a film that might not easily appeal to many people but for those interested in the more serious and modern Chinese film this is a strong recommendation.	1
I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.<br /><br />I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak / moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).<br /><br />This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.<br /><br />Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?<br /><br />My score: 4/10	0
Sure, most of the slasher films of the 1980's were not worth the<br /><br />celluloid they were filmed on, but this video nightmare may well be<br /><br />the dullest produced.<br /><br />Six horny pot smoking students decide to go camping. Of course,<br /><br />and you know this already, they begin getting killed one by one by a<br /><br />mysterious stranger. The climax has a hunky forest ranger trying to<br /><br />get to the teens in time before the last cute girl becomes buzzard<br /><br />bait.<br /><br />John Carl Buechler, my least favorite B-movie guy, did the lousy<br /><br />makeup effects here. The cast features Carel Struycken, of "The<br /><br />Witches of Eastwick" and the Addams family movies. Sadly, he<br /><br />does not pop up until the very end of the film, and is covered in<br /><br />burn makeup, rendering him unrecognizable. Steve Bond (anyone<br /><br />remember him?) is here in an early role as a victim.<br /><br />Brown's direction, and the script he cowrote, both smell like the<br /><br />presents brown bears leave in the woods. He pads the film with<br /><br />so much stock wilderness footage, I thought I accidentally rented a<br /><br />special episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. Much of the<br /><br />cast sits around the campfire and eats, then walk, and sit and eat<br /><br />again. The forest ranger is involved in the strangest scene ever put<br /><br />in a slasher film: he tells a joke about a wide mouthed frog to a<br /><br />baby deer. Jackie Coogan, who must have forgot he once worked<br /><br />with the legends of silent cinema, has two scenes, and is involved<br /><br />in the second strangest scene ever put in a slasher film: he and<br /><br />the hunky forest ranger have a conversation about cucumber and<br /><br />cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread...yeah.<br /><br />There is not one minute of suspense here. The killer, a forest fire<br /><br />survivor looking for a mate, watches the students from behind<br /><br />trees. We know it is the killer because the film makers have<br /><br />dubbed in a heart beat sound effect that helpfully serves to wake<br /><br />the viewer up every few minutes. Skip this pile of pine sap and rent<br /><br />"Halloween," instead.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, mild gun violence, gore,<br /><br />some profanity, brief female nudity, mild sexual content, sexual<br /><br />references, and drug abuse.	0
"Night of the Hunted" stars French porn star Brigitte Lahaie.In fact,many of the cast members in this slow-moving production were porn actors at the time of its frantic filming.This film is certainly different than Rollin's usual lesbian vampire flicks,but it's not as memorable as for example "Lips of Blood" or "Fascination".Lahaie plays an amnesiac hitchhiker who can't remember who she is or where she came from.Most of the film takes place in a modern apartment complex,where Lahaie is being held by some kind of medical group that's treating a number of people with a similar condition.Anyway,she escapes from the monolithic office tower where the affected people are held.On a highway outside of town,she meets a young man,who stops and picks her up."Night of the Hunted" offers plenty of nudity,unfortunately the pace is extremely slow.The atmosphere is horribly sad and the relationship between Brigitte Lahaie and another asylum inmate Dominique Journet is well-developed.Still "Night of the Hunted" is too dull to be completely enjoyable.Give it a look only if you are a fan of Jean Rollin's works.7 out of 10 and that's being kind.	1
Even if you're a fan of Jean Rollin's idiosyncratic body of work, you will be caught off guard by this exceptional foray into science fiction territory. For once, there's not a single diaphanously gowned vampire girl in sight ! True to tradition, the budget proved way too tight to realize the director's vision entirely. Yet this is largely compensated by his obvious love of genre cinema, dedication to his craft and sheer ingenuity. Jean-Claude Couty's atmospheric cinematography makes the most of the foreboding locations and Philippe Bréjean (a/k/a "Gary Sandeur") contributes a startling soundtrack that fortunately doesn't resemble any of the sappy stuff he composed for hardcore.<br /><br />Shot in and around a Paris office block before and after working hours, the film was largely cast with porn regulars Rollin was already quite familiar with from his "Michel Gentil" cash-gathering XXX efforts, most notably French f*ck film royalty Brigitte Lahaie in the demanding lead. Playing Elisabeth (rather well, I might add), she's picked up wandering a nearby highway one night by Robert (Vincent Gardère), driving home at the end of a long work day. Barely able to piece together the string of events that got her there, Elisabeth seems to lose her memories mere moments after events occur, even forgetting Robert's name and heroic savior role before their night flight comes to an end at his apartment. Prior to making love, she rightfully describes herself as a virgin (further credit to Brigitte's thespian skills that she can handle the line so convincingly, being after all one of the more active adult actresses of the '70s) because she cannot recall a single touch preceding his. Because of this nifty bit of context, the relatively long sex scene that follows totally eschews the gratuity of other "commercial" interludes Rollin has had to include in other works to assure funding.<br /><br />When Robert leaves for work, he's inevitably erased from Elisabeth's feeble mind. A mysterious doctor (comedian Bernard Papineau effectively cast against type) and his menacing assistant Solange (striking porn starlet Rachel Mhas) move in on her during her protector's absence and take her back to the place she turns out to have escaped from. Here we get one of the movie's strongest scenes as she's re-introduced to her roommate Catherine (the late Cathérine Greiner a/k/a hardcore performer "Cathy Stewart" in a quietly devastating turn), both girls desperately supplying fictitious shared "memories" for one another in a bid to outrun their inevitable fate. That deterioration is not solely limited to the mind becomes painfully clear when they are served lunch and Catherine's unable to control her movements in trying to eat a spoonful of soup. It's also Catherine who gets to voice the filmmaker's compromise with the demands of commerce as she urges Elisabeth to get naked and hold her because sex is all they have left now that both mind and physical faculties have deserted them.<br /><br />Several rather explicit - if not quite hardcore - sex scenes make up the movie's mid-section and French porn aficionados should recognize the likes of Alain Plumey (a/k/a "Cyril Val"), Jacques Gateau and Elodie Delage, along with a blink and miss bit from future porno princess Marilyn Jess whose rape at the hands, mouth and member of Plumey was only present in the film's rarely screened XXX version FILLES TRAQUEES. The pivotal part of Véronique, a girl Elisabeth almost seems to remember and whom she seeks to escape anew with, is beautifully handled by the exquisite Dominique Journet - in her unforgettable debut - who would go on to play a sizable supporting role in Franco Zeffirelli's LA TRAVIATA. The six feet under ending reveals the deteriorating condition to be the result of a nuclear spill, the quarantined "patients" ultimately leaving a barely breathing empty shell, unceremoniously disposed off in a fiery furnace. The final shot offers a particularly heartbreaking variation on that of Chaplin's MODERN TIMES as Elisabeth, approaching complete meltdown by now, and a wounded Robert stumble along the railroad bridge, clumsily clasping each other's outstretched hands.	1
I was surprised how much I enjoyed this. Sure it is a bit slow moving in parts, but what else would one expect from Rollin? Also there is plenty of nudity, nothing wrong with that, particularly as it includes lots of the gorgeous, Brigitte Lahaie. There are also some spectacularly eroticised female dead, bit more dodgey, perhaps, but most effective. There is also a sci-fi like storyline with a brief explanation at the end, but I wouldn't bother too much with that. No, here we have a most interesting exploration of memory and the effect of memory loss and to just what extent one is still 'alive' without memory. My DVD sleeve mentions David Cronenberg and whilst this is perhaps not quite as good as his best films, there is some similarity here, particularly with the great use of seemingly menacing architecture and the effective and creepy use of inside space. As I have tried to indicate this is by no means a rip roaring thriller, it is a captivating, nightmare like movie that makes the very most of its locations, including a stunning railway setting at the end.	1
I went into "Night of the Hunted" not knowing what to expect at all. I was really impressed.<br /><br />It is essentially a mystery/thriller where this girl who can't remember anything gets 'rescued' by a guy who happens to be driving past. The two become fast friends and lovers and together, they try to figure out what is going on with her. Through some vague flashbacks and grim memories, they eventually get to the bottom of it and the ending is pretty cool.<br /><br />I really liked the setting of this one: a desolate, post-modern Paris is the backdrop with lots of gray skies and tall buildings. Very metropolitan. Groovy soundtrack and lots of nudity.<br /><br />Surprising it was made in 1980; seems somewhat ahead of it's time.<br /><br />8 out of 10, kids.	1
I think that would have been a more appropriate title for this film, since it is padded to hell and back with stock footage of various bugs and animals. I recently found The Prey in its original VHS 'big box' form and was very excited. I just LOVE finding old slasher films on VHS because the cover artwork is fantastic. Usually though, it turns out that the film itself is less than fantastic. The Prey is one of those films.<br /><br />To be fair, it started off OK, with the killer stalking the cliché teenagers in the woods. The heartbeat sounds used are a great effect that make you tense as you watch. This film is basically a big fat cliché, and when the "campfire stories" section rolls in, the film takes a new direction and spends almost half of the running time on the back-story of the killer. I actually thought this was quite an original idea. However, the back-story ends abruptly and shows us some stock-footage of a burning woodland (the lack of budget really starts to show now). After this, we are returned to the dumb teenagers being picked off in the woods. The killer himself isn't shown until the end, which is a shame because he actually makes an effective looking killer. Sort of like Cropsy from The Burning, but better. As for gore, there isn't too much, although there's an OK face squishing moment at the end. <br /><br />Overall, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone other than slasher completists - it really is a big mess.	0
I have certainly not seen all of Jean Rollin's films, but they mostly seem to be bloody vampire naked women fests, which if you like that sort of thing is not bad, but this is a major departure and could almost be Cronenberg minus the bio-mechanical nightmarish stuff. Except it's in French with subtitles of course. A man driving on the road at night comes across a woman that is in her slippers and bathrobe and picks her up, while in the background yet another woman lingers, wearing nothing. As they drive along it's obvious that there is something not right about the woman, in that she forgets things almost as quickly as they happen. Still though, that doesn't prevent the man from having sex with her once they return to Paris & his apartment. The man leaves for work and some strangers show up at his place and take the woman away to this 'tower block', a huge apartment building referred to as the Black Tower, where others of her kind (for whom the 'no memory' things seems to be the least of their problems) are being held for some reason. Time and events march by in the movie, which involve mostly trying to find what's going on and get out of the building for this woman, and she does manage to call Robert, the guy that picked her up in the first place, to come rescue her. The revelation as to what's going on comes in the last few moments of the movie, which has a rather strange yet touching end to it. In avoiding what seemed to be his "typical" formula, Rollin created, in this, what I feel is his most fascinating and disturbing film. I like this one a lot, check it out. 8 out of 10.	1
1980 was certainly a year for bad backwoods slasher movies. "Friday The 13th" and "The Burning" may have been the best ones but there were like always a couple of stinkers not far behind like "Don't Go Into The Woods Alone" and this one. But in all fairness "The Prey" is nowhere near as bad as "Don't Go Into The Woods" but it's still not great either. One thing is that it's just boring and acting isn't very good but much better than "DGITW" and this movie actually has some attractive looking females to look at, all three of the female leads were stunning. One thing what is up with all that pointless wildlife footage it just seemed pointless and it looked as the director used that to just used that to fill up some time space.<br /><br />So, what was there to like about this movie? Well, there were a few laugh out loud cheese moments- I couldn't contain a fit of giggles when the final girl did a bizarre type of backwards moon-walk to get away from the kille and there were a few good kill scenes- my favourites being the girl suffocated to death with the sleeping bag; and the phoney looking.<br /><br />All in all The Prey is dumb, boring and the killer I didn't find scary at all, this movie could have been a whole lot better.	0
Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny.<br /><br />Felix meets a guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude, the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along.<br /><br />Once there, Felix barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end, though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray!	1
Despite the title and unlike some other stories about love and war, this film isn't too sticky and pink, because love is as a rose: With thorns, that is. The four leading actors set their characters realistic and with a good sense and balance between the tragic and the down-to-earth. <br /><br />The music and lyrics of the cabaret/chanson-esquire songs (sung b Keira Knightley herself) drag the viewer deeper and deeper in the film, from one place to another, between the brutal war and amongst the peaceful love. Some people may find it too much a biopic, but it ís mostly a romantic story, even though it consequently follows the life of Dylan Thomas and the triangular relationship which is steeped by joy and jealousy. <br /><br />London gets visualized from another angle for once, the bohemian life of Dylan during the bombings of the Germans is set in a floating atmosphere of small bedrooms, pubs and bars. The independent women, the soldier and the charismatic poet are constantly swept in both feelings of love and anger. <br /><br />Maybe the end is too twisted and hangs somewhat loosely to the rest of the film, but all in all this is a great romantic story.	1
Felix in Hollywood is a great film. The version I viewed was very well restored, which is sometimes a problem with these silent era animated films. It has some of Hollywood's most famous stars making cameo animated appearances. A must for any silent film or animation enthusiast.	1
A gem of a cartoon from the silent era---it was re-discovered by CARTOON NETWORK, and was broadcast for likely the first time in decades, if ever.<br /><br />What makes this so enjoyable are the varied cameos...Douglas Fairbanks is attacked by giant mosquitos; Will Hays pays a visit as 'boss' of Static Studios; as well as appearances by Chaplin, Keaton, and William S. Hart. The image of chewing gum decimating the shoes of the populace (a money-making idea for Felix's near-bankrupt shoe-=salesman boss) cannot be described--it must be viewed. A terrific cultural gem.	1
This short is one of the best of all time and is proof (just like most of Charlie Chaplin's work) that sound and color are not requirements for quality work. In fact, this cartoon uses (and may have started) some of the gags and devices that became standard in animation in later years, like caricatures of celebrities (including the afore-mentioned Chaplin. While the characters are silent, they do "speak", by use of word balloons, just like in the comics. Given that Felix started out in newspapers as a comic strip, this device is a natural. The atmosphere and style of the short is completely harmonious with that of the comic strip while adding another dimension (literally and figuratively) and makes this short a delight to watch. Well worth taking the time and effort to get. Most highly recommended.	1
Everything everyone has said already pretty much rings true when it comes to 'The Prey'. Endless nature footage, bad acting - Aside from these elements, this is a watchable film for slasher fans that in some cases, is considered a cult classic.<br /><br />Jackson Bostwick and Jackie Coogan play pretty well off each other. There's also a three minute banjo solo that shows off Bostwick's skill behind the instrument. Not too bad if I do say so myself.<br /><br />The last ten minutes of the 'film' are its saving grace. The ending still haunts me to this day. This can also sport a short lived plus in that an early John Carl Bucheler does the special effects. Some may know him from films like 'Troll' and 'Friday the 13th part 7 - He directed both these films) All in all, this isn't a movie everyone will find something redeeming in. In fact, on a Hollywood level, this can rank right up there with one of the businesses most amateurish efforts, but for that handful (yet very loyal) of slasher movie fans in the world, even the bad acting and atrocious nature footage can be forgiven.	0
Felix is watching an actor rehearse his lines: "A ham, A ham! My kingdom for a ham sandwich!!!" The dramatic guy that tells Felix he'll "have to sacrifice my art and go into the movies." He's in tears. Felix just looks at him like he's nuts, and shrugs his shoulders. The old guy tells Felix to "go ye forth" and find money to finance a trip to Hollywood. Felix thinks, "How does he expect me to get the money?"<br /><br />In minutes, of course (this is a cartoon), he spots a shoe business owner putting up a "bankrupt" sale on his store. Felix comes up with a plan to bail him out and the man promises the cat $500 if it works.<br /><br />Well, it does but the man wants to go alone and leave Felix at home. In an outrageous scene, Felix transforms himself into a briefcase and that's how he gets to Hollywood, transforming himself back to cat when they get there.<br /><br />We then witness Felix's attempts at getting into show business. His audition scenes are very funny, especially with his imitation of Charlie Chaplin. In addition there are caricatures of some famous silent film stars and executives. In all, quite a bit of material is in this 9.5- minute cartoon. It's amazing how much more you can get in an extra 2.5 minutes, assuming most animated shorts are seven minutes in length.<br /><br />At any rate, there were a number of laughs in here and more zany things you could only see in a cartoon, like Felix have a sword duel with giant mosquitoes! Crazy stuff.	1
While I can't say whether or not Larry Hama ever saw any of the old cartoons, I would think that writing said cartoons, file cards, and some of the comics would count for something.<br /><br />For fans of the old cartoon, this is pretty much a continuation of the same, except with a few new characters - and a more insane Cobra Commander.<br /><br />We still have all the old favorites too, but on a personal note, one thing that always irritated me was this "Duke in charge" stuff, when there are tons of other *officers* around instead.<br /><br />The battle sequences are similar to the old series as well; the main trick here seems to be the CGI. It's overall pretty good, if not a little over-the-top.	1
Uhhh ... so, did they even have writers for this? Maybe I'm picky, but I like a little dialog with my movies. And, as far as slasher films go, just a sliver of character development will suffice.<br /><br />Unfortunately, The Prey provides neither—and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Scene after scene, we just get actors standing around, looking forlorn and awkward, abandoned by any sense of a script. Outside of calling out each other's names when they get separated in the woods (natch), the only instances where these people say something substantive is when one character explains the constellation Orion (clearly plagiarized from Funk & Wagnalls; scintillating slasher fare, no?) and another rehashes an old campfire tale that doesn't even have anything to do with the plot (wait, what IS the plot?) At other times, The Prey actually has the gall to film its characters with the boom mic just far away enough so that we can't exactly hear what they're saying. So we get entire scenes wherein the actors are murmuring! Deliberately! Seriously, I've seen more dialog in a silent film. It's as if the filmmakers sat down at a bar somewhere in Rancho Cucamonga in the heyday of the '80s slasher craze and one looked at the other and said, "Hey, I gotta really sweet idea for a gory decapitation gag. Let's somehow pad an entire feature around it." And ... well, they did. <br /><br />To be fair, The Prey probably had some sort of writer on board. I mean, somebody had to jot down the scene sequence and label the dailies. However, I am fully convinced that this film did not have an editor of any kind whatsoever. There are glaring pauses, boring tableaux, and zero sense of pacing throughout. The filmmakers don't have anything else in the "script" to film, so they fill out the running time with exhaustive taxonomies of the flora and fauna that inhabit the forest in which our wild and crazy teens are getting sliced and diced. These critters are all filmed in straightforward, noontime daylight in a completely reserved fashion and with no attempt at atmospheric photography. If it feels like a science film, that's because it is. I'm pretty sure this is all nature show stock footage—all that's missing is a stuffy narration from some National Geographic alderman.<br /><br />More exciting footage that was graciously spared from the cutting room floor: a scene in which two men discuss cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches, and another scene wherein a supporting character strums away on a banjo for what feels like an entire minute-and-a- half! A minute-and-a-half! That's a lot of banjoing to commit to celluloid to begin with, let alone insert into the final cut of the film! Way to go, guys! Brevity and concision are the real victims of this slaughterfest.<br /><br />Admittedly, the film picks up quite a bit of steam (comparatively) in the last 25 minutes, into which much of the carnage is condensed and where a rip-off of Béla Bartók's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta" cuts in. Vaudeville great Jackie Coogan makes a fun appearance as a tubby, bumbly park ranger (this was his last role, if you can believe it). And there are some nice gory moments, including a splattery neck tearing and the aforementioned decapitation. The make-up used for the killer (Carel Struycken, aka "Lurch" from the Addams Family movies) is also quite effective, and makes him look like a strange hybrid of young Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. Plus, if you love wacky, straight-outta-left-field endings, you need to check out how they wrap this puppy up. You'll do a spit take, I promise.<br /><br />Usually, I love films that are on this level of ineptitude, but the first three-quarters of The Prey are just so interminably boring that they pretty much spoil the rest. Overall, this is a largely pallid and tedious affair, and, while it ain't all bad, it should really only be seen by debilitated slasher completists. Why do we do this to ourselves, anyway?	0
Errol Flynn's roguish charm really shines through in this entertaining and exciting, but historically bankrupt biopic of the famous (and some would say infamous) General Custer, that follows his career from his first day at West Point, through the Civil War and out west to the battle at The Little Big Horn, all the while butting heads with rival Arthur Kennedy and romancing pretty Olivia de Havilland.<br /><br />Some might say that Flynn, who delivers a great, flamboyant performance as the general, is basically playing himself playing Custer!<br /><br />A lavish production (that should have been in Technicolor) well directed by Raoul Walsh, They Died With Their Boots On features some truly well-staged battle sequences. Also, it's a real treat to see Anthony Quinn playing Crazy Horse.<br /><br />The previous year, Flynn played Jeb Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's George Custer in Santa Fe Trail (also with de Havilland), another action-packed Warner Brothers production designed to make you fail history class!	1
Warner Brothers tampered considerably with American history in "Big Trail" director Raoul Walsh's first-rate western "They Died with Their Boots On," a somewhat inaccurate but wholly exhilarating biography of cavalry officer George Armstrong Custer. The film chronicles Custer from the moment that he arrives at West Point Academy until the Indians massacre him at the Little Big Horn. This is one of Errol Flynn's signature roles and one of Raoul Walsh's greatest epics. Walsh and Flynn teamed in quite often afterward, and "They Died with Their Boots On" reunited Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's romantic interest for the last time. They appeared as a couple in seven previous films. This 140-minute, black & white oater is nothing short of brilliant with dynamic action sequences, humorous romantic scenes, and stern dramatic confrontations between our hero and his adversaries. One of the notorious errors involves Colonel Philip Sheridan who is shown as the commandant at West Point before the Civil War. Indeed, Sheridan was a lieutenant at this point. In fact, the commandant was Robert E. Lee as the earlier Flynn film "Santa Fe Trail" showed. Another historical lapse concerns Lieutenant General Whitfield Scott; Scott was not the commander of Union troops throughout the Civil War. Warner Brothers presented Custer as a drinker (probably because Flynn had a reputation for drinking), but in real life Custer neither drank nor smoked. Nevertheless, these as well as other historical goofs do not detract from a truly splendid film.<br /><br />"They Died with Their Boots On" opens with Custer riding into West Point Military Academy arrayed in a fancy dress uniform with an African-American carrying his luggage and tending his dogs. After the sergeant of the guard realizes that he has turned out a honor guard for a future plebe instead of a high-ranking foreign general, the sergeant turns Custer over to a ranking cadet Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy of "City for Conquest") to take charge of him. Sharp plays a practical job on Custer by installing him in the quarters of Major Romulus Taipe (Stanley Ridges of "Task Force") who promptly runs Custer out. Naturally, the volatile Custer attacks Sharp in a public brawl. General Phil Sheridan (John Litel of "The Sons of Katie Elder") is prepared to dismiss Custer from West Point for conduct unbecoming. As it turns out, Sheridan cannot expel Custer because Custer has not enrolled. Once he enrolls, Custer establishes a mediocre academic reputation with alacrity to fight and accumulate demerits galore. When the American Civil War erupts, West Point graduates cadets who have not completed their education and rushes them into combat. One of the last cadets hustled off to war is Custer. Avid as he is to get into the fight, Custer encounters his future wife, Elizabeth 'Libby' Bacon (Olivia de Havilland of "Santa Fe Trail"), and they pledge themselves to each other, despite Mr. Bacon (Gene Lockhart of "Carousel") who detests the sight of Custer. It seems that Bacon ran across Custer at a saloon and insulted one of Custer's friends and our hero reprimanded Bacon.<br /><br />Meanwhile, back in Washington, Custer desperately seeks a transfer to a regiment, but Major Taipe has him cooling his heels. Custer befriends rotund Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (Sidney Greenstreet of "The Maltese Falcon") and they share an appetite for creamed Bermuda onions that becomes one of Custer's characteristics. Not only does Scott see to it that Taipe assigns Custer to the Second Cavalry, but also Custer appropriates Taipe's horse to get to his command. During the Battle of Bull Run, 21 July 1861, Custer disobeys orders from none other than Sharp, strikes his superior officer and holds a bridge so the infantry can cross it. Wounded in the shoulder and sent to the hospital, Custer receives a medal rather than a court-martial. When Confederate General Jeb Stuart threatens the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, Scott is shocked by the chance that the South may triumph. When a brigadier general cannot be found, Scott goads Taipe into promoting the first available officer. A mistake is made and Custer is promoted. Incredulous at first, Custer embraces the moment and cracks Stuart's advance. After the war, Custer idles down and starts boozing it up with the boys at the local saloons. Sharp shows up as a crooked railroad promoter and with his father they try to enlist Custer to serve as the president of their railway so that they can obtain funds. Eventually, Libby intercedes on his behalf with General Sheridan, who was in command of the army, and gets him back on active duty as the commander of the 7th Cavalry. When he takes command, Custer finds the 7th cavalry a drunken lot and is not surprised that Sharp commands the liquor at the fort. Meanwhile, Custer has his first run in with Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn of "The Guns of Navarone") and takes him into custody. Of course, Crazy Horse escapes, becomes Custer's adversary, and they fight.<br /><br />Once Custer has quelled Crazy Horse and the Indians, Sharp with Taipe as a government agent conspire to destroy a peace treaty with the Sioux and other Indian nations. They also see to it that Custer is brought up on charges for striking Taipe in a saloon brawl. On his way to Washington, Custer discovers the perfidy of Sharp and Taipe who have drummed up a gold strike in the sacred Black Hills. Settlers rampage in and the Indians hit the warpath. Custer sacrifices himself and his 600 men at the Little Big Horn in a slam-bang showdown against 6000 redskins. "Stagecoach" lenser Bert Glennon captures both the grit and the glory. The long shot of the 7th Cavalry leaving the fort at dawn is spectacular. As an added premonition of Custer's imminent demise, Libby faints after he leaves their quarters for the Little Big Horn. "They Died with Their Boots On" benefits from a top-notch Max Steiner score that incorporates the regimental tune "Gary Owen."	1
If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.<br /><br />There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.<br /><br />Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.<br /><br />As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in "Santa Fe Trail", both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's "Little Big Man". Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.<br /><br />The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - "You take glory with you when it's your time to go".	1
After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn) from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great "Queen's Own Buttler" with his song "Garryowen", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ?<br /><br />An eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso.	1
Oh yeah, this one is definitely a strong contender to win the questionable award of "worst 80's slasher ever made". "The Prey" has got everything you usually want to avoid in a horror flick: a routine, derivative plot that you've seen a thousand times before (and better), insufferable characters and terrible performances, a complete lack of gore and suspense, fuzzy photography and unoriginal locations and – most irritating of all – the largest amount of pointless padding footage you've ever encountered in your life (and that's not an exaggeration but a guarantee!). Apart from the seemingly endless amount of National Geographic stock footage, which I'll expand upon later, this film is shameless enough to include a complete banjo interlude (!) and two occasions where characters tell dillydally jokes that aren't even remotely funny! The set-up is as rudimentary as it gets, with the intro showing images of a devastating forest fire with OTT voice-over human screams. Fast forward nearly forty years later, when an elderly couple out camping in that same area get axe-whacked by something that breathes heavily off-screen. This ought to be enough information for you to derive that someone survived the fire all these years ago and remained prowling around ever since. Enter three intolerable twenty something couples heading up to the danger zone with exclusively sex on their minds, unaware of course they are sitting ducks for the stalking and panting killer. "The Prey" is an irredeemable boring film. Apparently it was shot in 1978 already, but nobody wanted to distribute it up until 1984 and it isn't too hard to see why. In case you would filter out all the content that is actually relevant, this would only be a short movie with a running time of 30 minutes; possibly even less. There's an unimaginably large of nature and wildlife footage, sometimes of animals that I think don't even live in that type of area, and they seem to go on forever. The only thing missing, in fact, is the typical National Geographic narration providing educational information regarding the animals' habits. Animals in their own natural biotope are undeniably nice to look at, but not in a supposedly vile and cheesy 80's slasher movie, for crying out loud. The last fifteen minutes are finally somewhat worthwhile, with some potent killing sequences and fine make-up effects on the monster (who turns out to be Lurch from "The Addams Family" movies), but still silliness overrules – the scene with the vultures is too stupid – and the final shot is just laugh-out-loud retarded. As mentioned above, "The Prey" easily makes my own personal list of worst 80's slashers, alongside "Appointment with Fear", "Berserker", "Deadly Games", "Don't Go in the Woods", "Hollow Gate", "The Stay Awake" and "Curfew".	0
Supercraptastic slasher fare, which feels overly long at 80 minutes. Years ago, a bunch of "gypsies" who lived in the caves of a mountain, were burned up in a forest fire. Years later, campers are going missing from the area of the fire. A bunch of horny kids are, of course, en route to this area for a debaucherous camping trip of there own. Despite an ominous welcome from the forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) the kids troop up to the mountain any way. Before long, the kids start to get picked off by the monster, who remains unseen to the very end of the movie, probably because the makeup was so embarrassingly bad. No surprises to speak of: they get killed in the exact order that the formula for these movies dictates, leaving the "final girl" to fend for herself, although in a refreshingly downbeat denouement, the final girl ends up imprisoned and impregnated by the monster.<br /><br />The story itself couldn't hold the weight of feature length, so it was padded out by seemingly endless shots of wildlife and insects, which were obviously shot for another film and inserted here haphazardously as a means of making the movie long enough for a video release. On the plus side, the wildlife footage is rather nice. Also among the highlights are Bostwick talking to a baby deer, a decent rock-climbing death sequence, OK gore, and the Great Jackie Coogan in his final film role, as the bumbling local sheriff. This is a far cry from Charlie Chaplin, but it was still nice to see him. This is for slasher completists only.	0
I first viewed "They Died With There Boots On",about 1970 and though it has been many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to suggest as if that came out by accident"His squadron would follow him to hell,"Your at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and indeed he was doing work as a reliable attaché to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,"young Custer spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise."Robert L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the "Little Big Horn" only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17 hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it.	1
Even by the lowered standards of '80s slasher movies, this one stinks. The usual gaggle of oversexed teens heads for a "forbidden" part of forest, which burned in the 1940s and apparently left a sole angry survivor. Fast forward (actually, you'll want to fast-forward through much of this mess) to the present day, where a couple of campers are butchered; the teens follow in their wake, while a semi-concerned park ranger (a sleepwalking Jackie Coogan) and his healthier cohort (who spins a lot of time tuning his banjo) succeed partially in steering our attention from yards of run-of-the-mill nature-footage padding. Finally, more killings--but nothing you haven't seen a zillion times before. If you want to see the kids butchered, opt for SLEEPAWAY CAMP or the first FRIDAY THE 13TH over this	0
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.<br /><br />I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.<br /><br />*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****<br /><br />Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.<br /><br />I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.	1
Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy. <br /><br />The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.<br /><br />There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****	0
I blame "Birth of a Nation" myself - for commencing the long-running tradition of Hollywood travesties of history, of which there can be few greater examples than this. Apart from getting the names of Custer and his 7th Cavalry, Crazy Horse and the Sioux and President Grant spelt right, the geography correct and the fact that Custer and his men were indeed wiped out to a man, the rest just takes hyperbole and invention to ludicrous limits. Throw in some downright hackneyed scenes of the purest exposition, (try Custer and his wife's learning of the phony "Gold Rush" to excuse the invasion of the Sioux territory, Custer's testimony in front of Congress pleading the rights of the Red Indians and to top it all, Custer's storming into the president's office to beg to return to his post), honestly there's plenty more of the same, some of these scenes almost comical in their corniness... ...And yet, and yet, it's still a great actioner with Flynn as dashing as ever, DeHavilland as beguiling as ever, the young Anthony Quinn getting a start as Crazy Horse and director Walsh as barnstorming as ever in his depiction of crowd scenes and of course the tumultuous action sequences. Ford taught us in "Liberty Valance" to believe the legend before the truth. Here I think we're closer to the legend of the legend but hey, it's only a movie and a rollicking, wonderfully enjoyable classic Hollywood movie at that!	1
BEING Warner Brothers' second historical drama featuring Civil War and Battle of the Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer, THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1941) was the far more accurate of the two; especially when contrasted with SANTA FE TRAIL (Warner Brothers, 1940), which really didn't set the bar very high.<br /><br />ALTHOUGH both pictures were starring vehicles for Errol Flynn, there was a change in the casting the part of General Custer. Whereas it was "Dutch", himself, Ronald Reagan portraying the flamboyant, egomaniacal Cavalryman in the earlier picture, with Mr. Flynn playing Virginian and later Confederate Hero General, J.E.B. (or Jeb) Stuart; Errol took on the Custer part for THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON.<br /><br />ONCE again, the Warner Brothers' propensity for using a large number of reliable character actors from the "Warner's Repertory Company" are employed in giving the film a sort of authenticity, and all is really happening right before our very own eyes. Major roles are taken by some better known actors and actresses, such as: Elizabeth Bacon/Mrs. Custer (co-star Olivia de Havilland), Ned Sharpe (Arthur Kennedy), Samuel Bacon (Gene Lockhart), Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn), "Californy" (Charlie Grapwin), Major Taipe (Stanley Ridges), General Phillip Sheridan (John Litel), Callie (the Bacon's Maid, Hattie McDaniel). <br /><br />THE rest of the cast is just chock full of uncredited, though skilled players such as: Joe Sawyer, Eleanor Parker, Minor Watson, Tod Andrews, Irving Bacon, Roy Barcroft, Lane Chandler, Spencer Charters, Frank Ferguson, Francis Ford, William Forrest, George Eldridge, Russell Hicks, William Hopper, Hoppity Hooper, Eddie Keane, Fred Kelsey, Sam McDaniel, Patrick McVey, Frank Orth, Eddie Parker, Addison Richards, Ray Teal, Jim Thorpe (All-American, himself), Minerva Urecal, Dick Wessel, Gig Young and many, many more.<br /><br />THE film moves very quickly, particularly in the early goings; then sort of slows down out of necessity as the story moves along to the Post Civil War years, the assignment of Custer as a Colonel in the 7th Cavalry and the ultimate destiny at the Little Big Horn, in Montana. Under the guidance of Director, Griffith Veteran, Raoul Walsh, the film hits a greatly varied array of emotions; from the very serious, exciting battle scenes and convincing historical scenes; looking as if they were Matthew Brady Civil War Photos. As with most any of Mr. Walsh's films, he punctuates and expedites the end of many a scene with a little humor; but not going overboard and thus risking the chance of turning the film into a comedy (farce, actually).<br /><br />AS previously mentioned, this is much more factual than its predecessor, SANTA FE TRAIL (last time we'll mention it, honest Schultz, Scout's Honor!). However, that is not to say that it wasn't without a few little bits of "Artistic and Literary License; as indeed, just about any Biopic will have. It would be impossible to make any similar type of film if indeed every fact and incident were to be tried to be included in the screenplay. Perhaps the most erroneous inclusion as well as the most obvious invocation of Literary License is that business about Custer's being accidentally promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. It just didn't happen that way, yet the "gag" both helped the film to move along; while it underscored the whole light, carefree feeling that permeated the early part of the film.<br /><br />DIRECTOR Walsh and Mr. Flynn collaborated in giving us what would seem to be a characterization of this legendary Civil War Hero that was very close to the real life man. And they did this on top of the recreation of an incident, being the Massacre by the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Fukowi of Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. At the time of its occurrence, June 25, 1876, "Custer's Last Stand" was as big an incident and shock to the Americans' National Psyche as were the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) or the Atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists to New York's Twin Trade Towers and the United States' Armed Forces' Headquarters in the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on September 11, 2002.<br /><br />JUST as so many films of that period of WORLD WAR II (and the years immediately before), there were so many incidents in it that were, if not intentionally done, were demonstrations of virtues that would be needed in time of another Global Conflict, such as we were in by the time of THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON was finishing up its original Theatrical release period.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!!	1
Rented 3 bad movies to watch with my friends in my dorm room.<br /><br />Leprechaun 4, Jack Frost and The Prey.<br /><br />I picked up Jack and Lep 4 because they are well known bad movies I have never seen.<br /><br />I picked this movie out because it matched the "How to find a bad movie" guide on badmovies.org, No real description, no pics of the movie on the back, and I had never heard of it, had to be a winner :)<br /><br />(SPOILERS, but this movie is so awful it doesn't matter :P)<br /><br />This is a TRUE bad movie, Lep 4 and Jack Frost are dumb on purpose, this is dumb despite the best efforts of the cast and crew.<br /><br />This "movie" starts out much like Evil Dead, even the actors look similar and have the same style of dress. Unlike Evil Dead it never gains any speed at all. For a "slasher" movie it is pretty bland, in 80 minutes 6 people get killed, but these are spread apart so far it becomes quickly boring.<br /><br />The director threw in a lot of boring shots on animals hunting, obviously to go along with the whole "Prey" theme but they do nothing to advance the story and are quite boring. The gore is horrible. All these extra shots were to make up for lack of a script and story.<br /><br />The last 5 minutes of the movie are shot mostly in slow motion, yet another way to add length to this. The "climax" is such a total joke, its hard to laugh at it is so bad. The back of the box says "The ending will shock and haunt you." Yes it will, it will shock you that someone could put such a bad "plot twist" on film and "haunt" you because you won't believe you paid to watch this crap.<br /><br />Also the tagline is "Its not human, and it's got an axe!" One person is killed with an axe in the whole movie and it is off screen.<br /><br />A true 1 out of 10. I LOVE laughing at bad movies, but this one is so bad that it even lacks campy qualities. No bad movie night is compete without a true character building flick :P	0
When one stops to recollect upon the frequent on screen teaming of Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland, "They Died With Their Boots On" (1941) is most likely the film remembered best. It is the sweeping saga of General Custer (Flynn) - told from the time he enters West Point military academy and falls for the luscious Elizabeth Bacon (DeHavilland), through his tenure during the American Civil War, and finally with his death at Little Big Horn. Director, Raoul Walsh mounts his historical epic on the laurels of highly questionable recanting of historical texts, rewritten by screen writers Wally Kline and Aeneas MacKenzie, until truth and fiction are warped all out of proportion. Hence, the battle against Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) is portrayed as a crooked deal between politicians - California Joe (Charley Grapewin) and a spuriously absent corporation which wants to reclaim the land Custer gave to the Indians through the systematic genocide of the Nation's first peoples. <br /><br />Flynn, who cleverly plays Custer as though he is one part Arnold Schwartzenegger to two parts Albert Schweitzer, has never been more ignoble. He literally oozes charm and sex appeal from every pore that easily melts the heart of his loyal heroine. Resident Warner stock players, Arthur Kennedy and Sidney Greenstreet deliver marvelous cameos that appear to have far more depth and character than is actually written into the material for them.<br /><br />Overall, then, despite its loose rendering of history in favor of a good romantic yarn, "They Died With Their Boots On" is ample film fodder for a Saturday matinée or Sunday night cooing with one's sweetheart. Warner's DVD is pretty nice looking. Although film grain is often obvious, the gray scale has been very nicely rendered with deep, solid blacks and very clean whites. Some fading is obvious during scene transitions. The audio has been very nicely cleaned up and is presented at an adequate listening level.	1
The historical inaccuracies of this film have been well documented. It was never intended to be serious history but an entertaining saga and there it succeeds. Errol Flynn was never better as this role was tailored for him. Olivia DeHavilland was never more beautiful. Arthur Kennedy never more villainous. Anthony Quinn never more noble than as Crazy Horse. It had much humor and pathos and held your interest throughout. The one historical aspect I found most glaringly inaccurate was the final "Last Stand" which occurred on the banks of the Little Big Horn. The film version was filmed in a desert with no river in sight. However, I still consider it marvelous entertainment typical of Hollywood's golden age.	1
I was pulled into this movie early on, much to my surprise, because I hadn't intended to watch it at all. Now I wish I hadn't. The suspense starts out well, with the hit-and-run resulting in death and the question of whether the guilty character will confess, or be found out, or (doable now, though a no-no in the old days of movie-making) get away with it. The plot's been done before--what plot hasn't--but the tensions inherent in it, with the additional complications and motivations arising out of the illicit love affair, make for an absorbing first half. Then the film abandons the hit-and-run to embark upon a misty exposition of two unrequited, all-suffering loves. The two tracks of plot--hit-and-run and unreasoning love--just don't have enough to do with each other, and that they involve the same characters doesn't bind them enough to justify the departure from the original story line. The screenwriter should have chosen one plot or the other. At the end of the film, in the midst of the movie's second funeral, I found myself thinking, "Now, what does any of this have to do with that hit-and-run?" The filmmakers may think the answer obvious, but I think the movie was plotted and executed flabbily.	0
The prey has an interesting history, unless you remember the ads for it in newspapers in June of 1984 you might have caught it on the Movie channel back in summer 85, but little else is remembered. The plot is your basic killer in the woods again. But ironically this was filmed before Friday the 13th. The prey was actually shot sometime in 1978 according to one of the actors in an interview years later. But released for about a week at some drive ins, (yes Jim, namans drive in showed this in June of 84). But it has a dated look to it. Maybe they released it so later on to cash in on all the other terror films the market was flooded with by 1984. Now on the story, it has some kind of back story, a forest fire back in the 1940's leaves a lot of Gypsies burned to death. But one of their children survive (our monster) so flash forward to present day which would be 1978, we have an older middle age couple camping only to be dispatched by the Monster. The tag line for this picture claims ITS NOT HUMAN, AND ITS GOT AN AXE, but an Axe was only used in these first two killings. Now we have a bunch of teenagers who look like they in their mid 20's camping. We all know they are the Prey, and the monster knocks them of one by one. For an 80 minute movie it seems longer. We also have a lot of wildlife footage to fill in voids for the 80 mins. Overall for being out into an 80-'s horror movie it looks way more 70's than ever. Hey the Prey had potential to be a good horror killer in the woods movie but falls a little short.. It does however feature a pretty scary cool looking monster at the end, and we have to wait till the last 2 minutes to see him. Side note, the monster has gone on to star in the Addams family movies in the 1990's..	0
All the criticisms of this movie are quite valid! It is pretty boring, and filled with all kinds of pointless ridiculous stuff. A couple exchanging nods over their "good grub." A medium shot of a desk as a phone rings until someone finally comes, sits down, and answers it at a pretty leisurely pace. Quadruple-takes or more when people look at things. Solitary banjo-tuning and playing, taking a break for a beer. Telling a joke to a fawn, about a big-mouthed frog trying to learn what to feed its babies, complete with many big-mouthed expressions (which are needed for the weak punchline). The sharing of cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread, which to the squeamish become unpalatable when there's talk of people burned in a fire. Lots of seemingly stock-footage close-up shots of animals, birds, insects, and spiders in the woods.<br /><br />The movie starts with a forest fire, then at least a couple decades later some people in those same woods get killed by an axe. The killer evidently wasn't too satisfied by the axe he stole, and kills other people with other weapons of opportunity or his bare hands.<br /><br />If it's true that the movie in the version available on the out-of-print videotape is cut, perhaps if there's a lot of footage that was cut, it deserves another look on DVD. Otherwise, it's simply not very interesting, and would probably try the patience of even the most hardcore outdoors-slasher fan.	0
It's true that "They Died With Their Boots On" gives a highly fictionalized account of George Armstrong Custer's (Errol Flynn) life and career, but a remarkable one, especially with regard to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Because it is not a given that a 1941 movie tries to portray both the US-American cavalryman and Native American leader Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) in a favorable light. I'm almost tempted to say that "Little Big Man" in its unqualified anti-Custer stance seems unbalanced by comparison. Further, one should not be mislead by the title of the picture – this isn't just a movie about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, it's a movie about that shows the unreliable West Point cadet, the famed Civil War hero, the Indian fighter, and, last but not least, the husband.<br /><br />The movie begins with Custer's time at the West Point military academy, where his recalcitrance and insubordinate behavior lead to frequent demerits. During a punitive military exercise, he meets his future wife, Elizabeth Bacon (Olivia de Havilland), who, like Custer himself, is a native of Monroe, Michigan. Custer intends to court her, but the outbreak of the Civil War calls him away. Custer's legendary bravery is shown in a sequence of battle scenes, the greatest of which is devoted to his engagement with legendary Southern cavalry general Jeb Stuart during the Battle of Gettysburg. While on leave, he travels to Monroe and courts Elizabeth, who promises him her hand in matrimony. Immediately after the war, Custer and Elizabeth Bacon are married.<br /><br />With the Civil War over, Custer is demoted, doesn't get a real command, and has to go through the painstakingly slow process of promotion in the small, professional American army. As he starts to drink, his wife intervenes in his behalf with former general-in-chief Winfield Scott. Custer is given the command of the US 7th Cavalry, which he trains to be an elite unit. Neither Custer nor Crazy Horse are desirous of battle, but greedy businessmen and corrupt politicians decide to build a railroad through Indian lands in clear violation to earlier treaties. Custer explicitly acknowledges the justice of Crazy Horse's cause, but rides into battle to do his duty as a soldier, exposing the conspiracy of the moneyed interests in a letter he writes on the eve of battle.<br /><br />"They Died With Their Boots On," though short on historical accuracy, is as good as war movies and Westerns in the 1940s got: Both Custer and Crazy Horse are played by major actors, neither the Indians nor the Southern Confederacy are denigrated, and the courtship scenes with beautiful Livvy de Havilland are just charming. The only minus, and that's why I can't give this picture a full 10, is the undercurrent of racism in the portrayal of African American servants; Elizabeth's servant Callie is the stereotypical, overweight, good-natured, superstitious black mammy.<br /><br />It is also interesting that the movie does not find fault with either Custer or Crazy Horse, but with the greed of the railroad companies pressuring Washington politicians with semi-criminal methods into breaking assurances they had given to the Native Americans. Just a couple of years later, the insinuation that American entrepreneurs could even think of doing anything remotely questionable would probably have been taken as a hint that the film makers were communist sympathizers.<br /><br />Needless to say that "They Died With Their Boots On" omits the fact that Custer's overly aggressive tactics often bordered on the foolhardy, greatly overstates the importance of his engagement with Stuart, and doesn't mention the lack of reconnaissance prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Nevertheless, Custer was seen as a war hero by his contemporaries and had some spectacular exploits to point to in the Battles of Brandy Station, Gettysburg, Trevilian Station and others, though his feats of arms were not as decisive for the Civil War as "They Died With Their Boots On" suggests.<br /><br />In any event, "They Died With Their Boots On" is a well-made war movie with Western elements, three outstanding performers (Flynn, Quinn, and de Havilland), and offers a positive view of Native Americans as well as a negative one on big money, which wouldn't be seen in major Hollywood productions for decades to come. It would deserve a 10 if it weren't for the racist minstrelization of African Americans.	1
The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.<br /><br />I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.<br /><br />The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor.	1
I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.	0
Thank God I didn't buy this movie myself! I borrowed it from a friend who bought it out of sheer curiosity and of course after viewing it feel they should be reimbursed! This has got to be one of THE worse movies I've EVER seen! I do realize they couldn't have had much of a budget but I swear I could make a better movie than this staring my pets! The acting was horrible, so was the editing, the dialogue, EVERYTHING! It was so bad that it was seriously making me angry as I watched it! I'm looking forward to the REAL movie about this story coming out soon so that people curious about it don't have to stoop to watch this joke!	0
Now this is more like it!One of the best movies I have ever seen!Despite it made very well on all aspects,this movie was put down solely for not being too historically accurate.Loosen up!There are tons of historical movies out there that were forgiven for not being too historically accurate and many of them do not even come close to how grand,how entertaining and how captivating this movie was!Now this is what a movie ticket is all about!You will get exacty what you want from this movie's genre and all naysayers are those with the anti-Flynn syndrome.This conservative rooted syndrome is very closely related to the anti-Elvis,anti-Ali,anti-Clinton,anti-Kennedy syndromes,usually caused by fear of charming individuals who have unconventional beliefs.If the viewer of this movie is open minded and has the ability to separate politics from art,you will find this movie not only one of the best classics,but also one of the best movies of all time.I rate it the second best western ever, right behind Wayne's The Cowboys........	1
This movie is good for entertainment purposes, but it is not historically reliable. If you are looking for a movie and thinking to yourself `Oh I want to learn more about Custer's life and his last stand', do not rent `They Died with Their Boots On'. But, if you would like to watch a movie for the enjoyment of an older western film, with a little bit of romance and just for a good story, this is a fun movie to watch.<br /><br />The story starts out with Custer's (Errol Flynn) first day at West Point. Everyone loves his charming personality which allows him to get away with most everything. The movie follows his career from West Point and his many battles, including his battle in the Civil War. The movie ends with his last stand at Little Big Horn. In between the battle scenes, he finds love and marriage with Libby (Olivia De Havilland).<br /><br />Errol Flynn portrays the arrogant, but suave George Armstrong Custer well. Olivia De Havilland plays the cute, sweet Libby very well, especially in the flirting scene that Custer and Libby first meet. Their chemistry on screen made you believe in their romance. The acting in general was impressive, especially the comedic role ( although stereotypical) of Callie played by Hattie McDaniel. Her character will definitely make you laugh.<br /><br />The heroic war music brought out the excitement of the battle scenes. The beautiful costumes set the tone of the era. The script, at times, was corny, although the movie was still enjoyable to watch. The director's portrayal of Custer was as a hero and history shows this is debatable. Some will watch this movie and see Custer as a hero. Others will watch this movie and learn hate him.<br /><br />I give it a thumbs up for this 1942 western film.	1
Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).<br /><br />Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.<br /><br />For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer: <br /><br />1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.<br /><br />2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.<br /><br />3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.<br /><br />4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.<br /><br />5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.<br /><br />And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.<br /><br />And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.<br /><br />All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk.	1
As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier. And the "Garry Owen" is always nice to hear!	1
So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement. Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning, these films are totally different.<br /><br />The Actors work well, i think one good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team.<br /><br />If you want a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how their lives are intertwined.<br /><br />This film have genuine interaction, perfect pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for interaction and rely on belief.<br /><br />There are things wrong with it if your looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved.<br /><br />GO ON!! give it a go!	1
Although "They Died with their Boots On" is not entirely historically accurate it is a very entertaining western. Not only is Flynn the perfect Custer, the character actors are superb. Besides the action portion of the movie Flynn and DeHavilland's love scenes are very touching and believable.(Flynn and DeHavilland were very fond of each other in real life). Flynn was always so tormented for being not taken seriously if only he knew that there were very few actors who could play the characters he played and play them well!	1
I saw this movie with my girlfriend. It was a total disaster. You can really see it was cheaply made. Badly scripted and with very bad acting. I have read several versions of the book by different authors and also listened to one version on audio book. We couldn't take the movie seriously because of the lacking elements it should have contained. The experience of watching this was like The Blair Witch visits Green Acres. Then there were parts that were vulgar. They show this little boy using a bed pan and they actually show the contents of it. The witch throws the contents of it on the boy and the whole family laughs. I thought it was nasty and very strange. I really can't understand why someone would think that would be entertaining. It shows another scene where Dr. Mize arrives and Betsy Bell is urinating in her dress on the steps of their house in front of her mother and brothers. Instead of the mother leading her off it is the brother. How sick? The little boy in the first scene of the many scenes dealing with how your body disposes of wastes begs for toilet paper and goes to the out house and makes these sickening faces of joy with sound effects. I think they should have left all of that out. The makeup on the Reverend James Johnston as a older man didn't really make you assume he was older. It made you think he was dipped in fish batter. The blood on Joshua Gardner when he falls from the ladder is even worse. The John Bell death scene looks like they got out flour and tried to do something with it to make him look as a serious sick man. To me to much sickening comedy with bathroom problems and inexperienced people involved was the downfall of this picture. These people would do better if they film commercials for local TV Stations for bathroom products. They chose a good subject and were unable to produce it in a correct manner. I rate this film Capital F minus.	0
Errol Flynn at his best as Robin Hood of the West, fighting military red tape, confederates , indians and carpetbagger business crooks singlehanded to his great and final heroic end. Not to forget the ever reliable O. de Havilland as Lady Mary of the west. Never try to link this story to the facts and the real persons, it doesn't work out. Just enjoy it, because nobody ever claimed to make documentaries when Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn co-worked.	1
The saving grace of this film is its humour. Playing up to the strengths of their star, Warner Brothers cast their version of General Custer as a cocky, dashing, irreverent prankster with a romantic streak and an unexpected strain of idealism; it was Robin Hood all over again, and Flynn blossomed in the role. All his best action pictures made use of his talent for mischief and comic timing, and this one was no exception.<br /><br />It also benefits from the return of former co-star Olivia de Havilland, despite an earlier agreement to break the partnership; the part of strong-minded Libby Custer is a better role than the sweet love-interest types she had grown tired of playing for the studio in Flynn's later films, and after seeing the script he had specifically requested de Havilland be cast so that she could do justice to the part. In this final collaboration, she piles all her considerable acting skill into what is, at heart, basically a romping adventure movie, and the screen chemistry is rekindled -- for once, she and Flynn get the chance to develop their characters beyond the initial romance into an old married couple, to equally winning effect.<br /><br />The Flynn/de Havilland pairing and the streak of comedy are what have provided this film's durability, when most of Flynn's other Westerns -- held in such affection by the contemporary American public, although allegedly not by their star -- have long since been forgotten. The action scenes are fairly cursory (despite, ironically, the death of an extra in a fall during one of the filmed charges) and the villains of the piece turn out, schoolboy-fashion, to be the same people who were horrid to Our Hero on his very first day at West Point, and thus continue to frustrate him throughout his career. It cuts down on the cast list, but it's a trifle too morally convenient.<br /><br />However, these are quibbles largely irrelevant to a film that never set out to be more than a rousing piece of entertainment. Ably aided and abetted by a sterling group of supporting players (memorably including Anthony Quinn in an all-but-wordless role as the Sioux leader), Errol Flynn gallops his way through the plot courtesy of his usual arsenal: charmingly sheepish looks, unexpected sweetness, mischievous twinkles, flash-point indignation, cheerful fellowship and sheer high-octane charisma. He's a reckless braggart, but you can't help but like him. And it's hard to go away without the tune of "Garryowen" threading its jaunty way through your ears for many days thereafter.<br /><br />This is one of Flynn's lasting hits; it also contains a surprising amount of good acting amongst the fun, and is a film worthy of being remembered.	1
If anyone tells you this picture is just terrific they probably have something to do with either making it or profiting from it. This film is a real loser and it copies situations from big budget horror movies and not to mention soundtracks to. I wouldn't recommend this one to my worst enemy. It is a low budget movie with amateur actors. It looks like it was filmed for a film contest. The acting is terrible and it wouldn't surprise me if the script was written by a Hee Haw script writer. My family laughed at it. A Grade ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ all the way. You won't be scared by this one. Here is one little taste of the terrible elements of this film. When the guy gets his toe stomped by Ric White's stupid portrayal of the Reverend James Johnston walking cane. The guys reactions are like if he had an amputation with no pain killer. Watch the DVD extras after you watch the movie. When you see Ric White and others talk so seriously about the movie you will laugh till your stomach hurts. How people will stretch the truth and what they will do to earn a dishonest buck. Don't get fooled like we did and buy this failure.	0
Are you kidding me? This is quite possibly the worst, amateur movie I've ever seen. The casting was horrible, the acting was worse than horrible and I'm sorry, the guy at the picnic speed loading his plate full of food was somewhere near pointless and the demonic turd and chamber pot chasing Drew around was nothing more than comical. When I herd about the Bell Witch, I wanted to believe. I read some literature on it and thought it sounded like it was possible a plausible story. But this movie just destroyed that. Ric White (Director, Writer, Lead Actor, etc) takes himself a bit too seriously and I think he gives himself a little more credit than he deserves....Do yourself a favor....skip this one.	0
In addition to the fact that this is just an abysmally made film (imagine giving a camcorder to the average high school drama club) the people who think that there is anything "real" about this legend need to grow up. This is the 21st century. Guess what: ghosts don't exist. Most people learn that from their mother when they're about 5 years old. You guys seriously need to grow up.<br /><br />The fact that a fraud was perpetrated nearly 2 centuries ago does not make it any less a fraud. The fact that a large number of inbred hillbillies from Tennessee believe it doesn't do it either. Go to college. Or at least finish high school.	0
this is awesome!!! there is no partnership quite like Errol, and Olivia. there love is genuine! I'm 24, yet this flick is as captivating now as I'm sure it was 60 years ago. Raoul Walsh is an under-rated genius, his direction is so sweeping, so broad, yet so intimate. the last scene between colonel custer (Flynn), and his wife (de havilland), almost brought me to tears (Not easy for a 24yr old guy!!), its so heart-wrenching. there is also a deep Christian message implicit here, the faith Custer has in taking your glory with you, and the trust, and fidelity of his wife to the extent of letting him go, in order that he fulfils his moral duty to protect the innocent civilians from certain massacre. there is no movie that deals with these issues quite like this. a must-see for anyone who wants to look at this defining moment in American, and military history, from the inside. patriotic, for all the right reasons. i knew Errol Flynn was a star, and De havilland was a screen legend-this only confirms my suspicions that they are among the very greatest!	1
George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. "They Died with their boots on," paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his love for adventure.<br /><br />Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers.<br /><br />Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining.<br /><br />The reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure, comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed them as wanting to protect their sacred land.<br /><br />	1
I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I was so excited when I saw the preview, which scared the hell out of me. But when I saw the actual film, I was disappointed. The acting is stilted, and the attempts at comedy are woefully out of place and forced. And I'm sorry, but a boy being chased by a turd in a bedpan is not funny or scary, it's just stupid. I grew up on the Bell Witch legend, so I know quite a bit about it. A lot of facts in the movie are right on target, but this film should have been much better. The entire birthday party scene, for example, lasts about fifteen minutes, adds nothing to the plot or the story, and should have been left on the cutting room floor. A more heavy-handed editor might have been able to get a decent film out of this mess.<br /><br />Please understand, I'm not in any way, shape or form involved with the other Bell Witch movie, and I'm not trying to "attack" this IMDb listing. I'm just telling it like it is.	0
Whether one views him as a gallant cavalier of the plains or a glory hunting egomaniac, debates about the life and military career of George Armstrong Custer continue down to the present day. They Died With Their Boots On presents certain facts of the Custer story and has taken liberty with others.<br /><br />He did in fact graduate at the bottom of his class at West Point and got this overnight promotion on the battlefield to Brigadier General. His record leading the Michigan Regiment under his command was one of brilliance.<br /><br />It was also true that his marriage to Libby Bacon was one of the great love matches of the 19th century. Libby and George were married for 12 years until The Little Big Horn. What's not known to today's audience is that Libby survived until 1933. During that time she was the custodian of the Custer legend. By dint of her own iron will and force of personality her late husband became a hero because she would not allow him to be remembered in any other way.<br /><br />I think Raoul Walsh and Warner Brothers missed a good opportunity to have the Custer career told in flashback. Olivia DeHavilland should have been made up the way Jeanette MacDonald was in Maytime, and be telling the story of her husband and her marriage from the point of view of nostalgia and remembrance. Even then the cracks in the Custer legend were appearing, but if done from Libby's point of view, they could be understood and forgiven.<br /><br />Sydney Greenstreet gave a fine performance as General Winfield Scott. The only problem was that Scott had nothing whatsoever to do with Custer, he was retired and replaced by George B. McClellan in late 1861 while Custer was still at West Point. I'm not sure they ever met. But Greenstreet does a good characterization of the ponderous and powerful Winfield Scott. A nice Mexican War story should have been what they gave Greenstreet instead for his very accurate portrayal of old Fuss and Feathers.<br /><br />The film though is carried by one of the great romantic teams of cinema, Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland. This was the last of eight films they did together. The last scene they ever did for the cameras was Libby's farewell to George as he leaves to join his regiment for what will prove to be his last campaign. Both their performances, Olivia's especially, was a high point in their careers at Warner Brothers. We know through history that Custer is riding to his doom, that and the fact that this was their last screen teaming give this scene such a special poignancy. If your eyes don't moisten you are made of marble. <br /><br />As history They Died With Their Boots On leaves a lot to be desired. As western adventure that successfully mixes romance with the action, you can't beat this film at all.	1
great historical movie, will not allow a viewer to leave once you begin to watch. View is presented differently than displayed by most school books on this subject. My only fault for this movie is it was photographed in black and white; wished it had been in color ... wow !	1
I saw this film over Christmas, and what a great film it was! It tells the story of Custer (played by Errol Flynn) during and after his graduation from Westpoint. Although I've heard that the film isn't very historically accurate (Hollywood never is) I still enjoyed it as I knew little of the real events anyway.<br /><br />I thought Errol Flynn was brilliant as Custer and has since become my favourite actor! His acting alongside Olivia De Havilland was brilliant and the ending was fantastic! It brought me close to tears as he and Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) rode to their deaths on little big horn.<br /><br />I had always known that Errol Flynn was a brilliant actor as he was my dads favourite actor, and I grew up watching his films as a child. But it wasn't until I watched this film that I realised how great he actually was.<br /><br />I'll give this film 10 out of 10!!	1
Although this film changes reality to make it more heroic and entertaining, sometimes fantasy is more enjoyable than real life, and also nothing could be more real than Errol Flynn playing Custer. This remains the best film made about Custer. The music of Max Steiner is magnificent and also all through the film the Irish song "Gerry Owen", which was a favourite of Custer is played. The film should have more villains, because they try to concentrate all the bad guys in Arthur Kennedy. The relationship between Flynn and De Havilland flows like in no other off their films together, and director Raoul Walsh with his experience in outside scenes with a lot of actors is at his best.	1
I am not understanding why people are praising this movie. I didn't like it at all. I watch it with several people. None of them cared for it either. First of all. It is just plain that another low budget studio is trying to cash in on a big name story. The actual filming looks like a live TV interview. The makeup is bad. When you watch the movie along with the DVD extras. You will see there is a lot of enthusiasm from the people who participated in it. There is no talent. There are facts that do appear in the book. The facts are distorted by the invention of comedy and skits added to it. I have read several books and have watched several shows on this story. What I have always caught from all the material on this is that it was a serious horror story. I really wish someone could really do a good film on this one. It has always fascinated me. The bad acting really ruined the story. The little boys situation really hammed it up even more. When you watch this movie. The little boy and his problem is the thing you and your friends will remember and laugh about. It didn't make any sense why his brothers were laughing at what had happened to him. It was like the witch was supposed to be so threatening but it was OK to throw baby brother to her. It is a whopping tale with him and his little problem. I can't still get over the little girl saying "Mom said tobacco will rot your teeth." Frank Fox's statement and facial expression is so bad. The scene out in the yard with him getting food is pretty stupid to. The sound from parts of it seems to be from the movie psycho. Also, The girl hovering over the bed and her little "Bladder control problem" are from The Exorcist. This movie is lacking from the talent of creativity. We put the movie in for a couple of minutes and knew right away it was a bummer. I also noticed that their was defects in the film quality. Parts of it looked like what a person might film on a Home video camera. I noticed a lot of the people in the credits had many multiple jobs. This is probably how this movie was put together. Someone said I like this story. I will get all my friends and make a movie about with a video camera and a computer. Doesn't matter if we don't know how to act. As long as we get it on film and say it is good. We got the family together and prepared food. Then sat down and watched this failed attempt to make a movie.	0
This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I think I am actually being very charitable.<br /><br />What was he like - that man of horse and saber who was the youngest "boy" general in the Union Army of the American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious, bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant/Lee, and Sherman/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one - maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War). <br /><br />Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant, and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it.<br /><br />So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of 1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every northern "Point" man they could find.<br /><br />Custer's Civil War career should be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive).<br /><br />Following the war things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career. Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived.<br /><br />That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it.<br /><br />Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to a "dance" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character. In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks (Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study of a complex military hero it is not what it should be.	1
Can you capture the moment? When first you hear rain on a roof? Some things are beyond the sum of their parts, expressing the poetry of life. The things that matter.<br /><br />Poet Dylan Thomas captured the seemingly inexpressible "A good poem helps to . . . extend everyone's knowledge, of himself and the world around him." (Bob Dylan named himself after him). So why has it taken so long to make a film of the great Dylan Thomas? A simple biopic could have missed the point. Writer Sharman Macdonald has taken a different, better approach.<br /><br />In The Edge of Love, she creates the world of passions and complexities that fill the poems so we can swim in them. The lives of four friends. Dylan, who lusts and loves to the full. Wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller), his feisty support. War-hero William (Cillian Murphy), who saves him from a street brawl. And then there's his childhood sweetheart. Vera. Dear Vera. Take your breath away Vera. She's Caitlin's closest friend. William's wife. And, like a muse, the 'star' in Dylan's dark sky.<br /><br />It all kicks off in the 1940 London Blitz, with bomb shelters in the Underground. Enter Vera (an impressive Keira Knightley) under makeshift stage spotlights. She meets Dylan for the first time again in years, her heart is flushed. Their eyes shine through the smoke of the room. The purity of their former passion. Dylan (native Welsh-speaker, Matthew Rhys) is no sanctified, sanitised poet. Master of his vices he must experience them all fully. He introduces his beloved wife then continues to woo Vera.<br /><br />The Edge of Love is a visual treat. The soundtrack leaves you wanting for more. Performances are possibly the best by these actors in their careers. As a lush love story it's pretty good. As an insight into Dylan Thomas and the reality of poetry in all our lives, not bad at all. And as a tribute to a great man, inspiring.<br /><br />The production has been at pains to project the spirit of Dylan Thomas without compromising historical accuracy too much. Dramatic tension involves a pull between artistic freedom and conventional morality. Audiences looking for an experience based on the latter may be disappointed. And it will play less well to audiences whose boundaries are those of Albert Square.<br /><br />Sharman Macdonald seemed aware of the headstrong nature of artistic freedom and its limits when she spoke to producer Rebekah Gilbertson (granddaughter of the real William and Vera). "Think of all the things that you don't want me to write about," she said," because I have to have carte blanche." For Macdonald, the limits were if she should cause offence to Dylan's memory. But for many artists, especially men, the limits are those which wife and family could set on them. A woman is not going to let lofty ideals interfere with practical common sense issues, and will even put her children's interests before her own (This occasionally happens the other way round, as when towering genius Virginia Woolf refused to let loving Leonard bring her down to earth - in The Hours).<br /><br />In spite of the tension between Caitlin and Vera, these two women become closest buddies. It is one of the main (and very beautiful) themes of the film.<br /><br />The film's colours tell a story in themselves. In a drab, wartime Britain, Caitlin and Vera are vivid highlights in an ocean of grey. Shortly after meeting Vera's lit-up-in-lights stage persona, we encounter Caitlin through her searing blue eyes, sparkling in a darkened railway carriage. Her dramatic red coat cuts a dash through streets of colourless homogeneity, triumphing on a beautiful staircase as she reunites with Dylan. But Vera's lipstick red brightness is less enduring. For her, marriage is second-best, even when she has become possessed with genuine love for her husband.<br /><br />Outstanding cinematography extends to using montage to juxtapose images, in a manner similar to poetry's juxtaposition of unrelated words to create further meaning. Horrific war scenes in Thessaly are intercut with screams of Vera in pregnancy. Giving birth or is it abortion? We are not told immediately. Pain is universal and goes beyond time and place to our present day.<br /><br />Constant echoes of Dylan's poetry throughout the film lead us beyond earthly opposites. It reminds me of Marlon Brando reading TS Eliot in Apocalypse Now. A light beyond the horrors of the world. A different way of seeing things. "I'll take you back to a time when no bombs fell from the sky and no-one died – ever," says Dylan to Vera as they walk along the beach. Elsewhere, Caitlin recalls childhood with Vera: "We're still innocent in Dylan," she says.<br /><br />There's a time to leave your knickers at home or share a universal cigarette. (Not literally, perhaps.) A time to be inspired. Enjoy what is possibly the best British film of the year.	1
The Custer Legend, a la Warner Brothers Epic. There's no casting against type here, with the flamboyant Flynn as the flamboyant Custer in this rousing tribute, not only to Custer, but to the men of the 7th Cavalry. The story traces the life of the famed 'Boy General" from his turbulent days at West Point to his final fight at the Little Big Horn. Great liberties are taken with facts here, and we are presented with a Custer that is much more sympathetic to the plight of the redman than history relates. But this one is done on such a grand scale, the battle scenes alone provided employment for every extra in Hollywood. Down beat ending and all, this is great fun!	1
This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.<br /><br />Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing "Gosford Park", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.	0
The filmmaker stayed true to the most accurate account of the story published in 1894 which includes an 1846 manuscript by Richard Williams Bell (son of John and Lucy Bell and younger brother of Betsy Bell) titled "Our Family Trouble." To knowledge this is the only eyewitness account ever penned. The filmmaker should be credited for accuracy but there is little to say about the production and acting quality. The acting was theatrical and the sound and picture quality was extremely poor. It appears that the filmmaker simply shot scenes of the reported events that took place without incorporating or weaving them into a flowing plot or story line. If you must know the story, read about it, its much more gripping and conclusive.	0
BELL WITCH HAUNTING (aka THE HAUNT) is an American horror movie supposedly based on real events that took place during the period 1817 to 1821.<br /><br />This is not to be confused with BELL WITCH: THE MOVIE, a movie starring Betsy Palmer based on the same events. However, I can say that I wish I had seen this other movie instead of the one I saw! I enjoyed Betsy Palmer's chilling performance in Friday THE 13TH. As such, I believe that even on a bad day, she'd pull off a better performance than anyone involved in the travesty known as THE HAUNT.<br /><br />With regard to my heading, this movie is not painful to watch because the content is disturbing. It is painful to watch because it is just downright boring.<br /><br />Reading the positive reviews for this movie, I could only identify three possibilities. The first possibility - these authors were involved in the production in some way. The second possibility - the authors whilst not directly involved were paid to write positive reviews after production was completed. The final possibility - none of these authors has seen a sufficient number of horror movies and therefore is inexperienced with the concepts that successful attempts utilise.<br /><br />The setting for the plot is Robertson County, Tennessee. James Johnston receives a visit from two journalists eager to hear the story of the Bell Witch. The story is told as a series of flashbacks. A series of supernatural events begin happening at the home of John Bell and his family. It soon transpires that a vengeful spirit is behind it all.<br /><br />On the surface the plot appears to be a standard poltergeist affair, albeit one based on real events.<br /><br />Where execution of the brilliant concept is concerned however, just about everything that could go wrong does go wrong. And then some!<br /><br />First, the acting. The acting is almost uniformly terrible right across the board. This factor does the most damage to the production, undermining any possible credibility of belief or interest on the part of the viewer. The voice of the vengeful spirit sounds more like a teenage girl experiencing teenage angst rather than a powerful demonic force expressing malevolent intent. I almost laughed when I heard some of her lines. Unfortunately, this voice began to become very annoying very quickly! I may not have been alive in the 1800s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any young woman alive at that time would speak in the way that this "ghost" does!<br /><br />Second, the direction. The direction is haphazard and very uneven. Some scenes show promise but potential is squandered by the clearly inexperienced director. Nothing is done with the camera, with sound or with lighting to add intensity to the scenes intended to be scary. The atmosphere is equally flat. A vengeful spirit is supposedly behind supernatural occurrences. Yet the effects are so incredibly inept that no one who has seen a proper horror movie would buy into them. I'll give one example. In one scene, the spirit attacks someone. See the scene for yourself. It's almost funny - almost.<br /><br />Third, the script. Whilst it may be the case that the events shown are faithful to accounts of real occurrences, it cannot be denied that most scenes are incredibly flat and boring. Scenes as short as two minutes feel much longer thanks to the poor dialogue - dialogue that fails to add depth to the characters or story. This movie is far too reliant on conversations to advance the story. Whilst this style was also the case with British movies from the British horror heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, it cannot be denied that the dialogue exchanges were always interesting to watch in these more professional earlier works. Peter Cushing for example could read a telephone directory and still hold attention of the viewers. The same cannot be said of the actors in THE HAUNT.<br /><br />Finally, the humour. The ill-guided attempts at humour in this movie are excruciating. An obese boy is the butt of many jokes. One particularly awful scene sees the said boy going to the outside toilet. This scene should never have been included - but it is and complete with sound effects in case you fail to understand what he is doing!<br /><br />The only positive points about the movie are the location and the costumes. The decision to shoot the picture near the original location helped add some authenticity. The costumes were also well chosen.<br /><br />Overall, THE HAUNT is an appalling movie. It is not even in the "so bad it's good" league. It is instead just boring. I advise everyone to save their money and avoid this movie like the plague. Don't even bother seeing it for free!<br /><br />I have never seen the other movie about the Bell Witch. But it really couldn't be any worse than THE HAUNT. Could it? I'll give this other movie a chance if I can track it down.<br /><br />In the meantime, I would advise everyone on here to check out some proper horror movies about ghosts and haunting. THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE GRUDGE (Japanese original) and ONE MISSED CALL (Japanese original) are good places to start.	0
All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film," described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.<br /><br />Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)<br /><br />Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).<br /><br />Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.<br /><br />8 of 10	1
I love ghost stories and I will sit through a movie til it's end, even if I'm not really enjoying it. I rarely feel like I wasted my time... BUT, this adaptation of the Bell Witch story was horrible! <br /><br />It wasn't scary in the least bit. What is with the comic relief moments? The dialog was tedious. Acting inconsistent The movie was WAY too long and some scenes were unnecessarily drawn out in my open. (Like the birthday party)<br /><br />The only good think I can think about mentioning is the costumes and props were well done.<br /><br />I am curious about other adaptation, but until then, I will stick to reading about the story.	0
While the premise of the film sounded unique and intriguing after watching the first 5 minutes of the film I could have stopped there and gone on with my life. She does get some interesting comments and reactions from her subjects, but not really enough to add to the validity of the film.<br /><br />I also felt she went a bit overboard with many things. If a guy said a filthy comment, grabbed her, or made some disgusting gesture to her, I would say go for it, bring him down, he's a pig. What bothered me though is she would walk around in revealing clothes and be surprised when guys would look at her and give them hell about it.<br /><br />I think somehow she forgot that being attracted to other people is a part of human sexuality and a big part of who we all are. Guys will look at beautiful women, especially when they dress provocatively, just like women will look at men when they are wearing a tight tank or no shirt at all.<br /><br />Some women may hate me for this, but I hope not. I have much respect for women. I was raised by one. I also come from a Spanish family and we are very matriarchal. My grandmother was the center of my family for years, but I don't really feel this did anything to help women's rights and from what the filmmaker even said herself, some women were offended by her project.	0
Dashing Errol Flynn brings his usual flair for drama in this historically flawed but entertaining film of the life of George Armstrong Custer. The dashing, jovial Flynn essays Custer from his days at West Point as a reckless, headstrong cadet, through the Civil War years in an extraordinarily generous and partisan interpretation of history, and finally as the nonpareil Indian fighter whose blunder at the Little Big Horn is excused as a sacrifice by Custer of his command as a way of exposing the corruption of government officials and post traders as well as a protest of the unfair treatment of the Plains Indians. Olivia de Havilland, Flynn's co-star in several other films, scores as the devoted, adoring Libby Bacon, and Anthony Quinn looks the part as the fierce Sioux chief Crazy Horse. The film's battle scenes are excellent. The Civil War battles are brief and are shown as several vignettes in which Custer, seemingly supported by just a handful of troopers, hammers the Confederate army into submission. Custer's last fight against the Indians is a grand spectacle, a savage clash between red men and white, with no quarter given in a wild mix of military might between determined fighting men. Great direction, cinematography, casting and wonderful music by Max Steiner make this film a Hollywood classic.	1
If you took all the stock elements of a Shrek movie (grumpy ogre, annoying donkey, cute kitty, obligatory dance number, etc.), put them in a blender and condensed it to 20 minutes, you'd have this mess. Painful to watch; I may have laughed once. The story and dialogue are rushed beyond comprehension, with the voice actors sounding like they phoned in their lines. The final reworked rendition of "The Christmas Story" poem felt like it was written by a committee in five minutes. And boy, a little Eddie Murphy goes a long way. With its desperate attempt to be hip and current, this show will be long outdated and forgotten while classics like "The Grinch…" will remain timeless. A sad waste of effort by all involved, a veritable "jumping of the shark" for the Shrek franchise.	0
I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.<br /><br />We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.	0
I had seen this movie as a kid and loved it. I loved how spunky and full of energy Nikki is, and how she mostly ruins Louden's perfect yuppie life and corrupts him and turns him on to her crazy ways. As a kid in the 80's I saw New York exactly the way it was portrayed in this movie, the domain of Madonna's character, with wild animals running rampant and hideous bald men chasing people around and causing havoc. Now as an adult I find I love the movie for the same reasons, and even more so for the love story woven into the crazy antics of Ms. Nikki Finn. Although I would still love to go anywhere and find an indoor atrium like in this movie. Pure beauty and genius.	1
This is one of those strange, self-important, self-indulgent movies which tries too hard to be profound. It isn't. Instead, it spouts cliches that try to pass for Profundity. Typical is the scene where Peter (Kelsey Grammer) explains to protagonist and best friend Adam (Dwier Brown) how man starts life breast feeding, then moves on to sucking the breast of his girlfriend, and finally his wife, thus concluding ultimately that life sucks. So deep. We are treated to a variety of characters who offer their perspective of life, the universe, etc. during Adam's travels through the Mojave Desert on foot. (He abruptly leaves L.A. the day of his wedding and his family, friends, and fiance assume he's dead when his car was found in a military test range smashed by a rocket.) Some characters are more entertaining than others. The best by far is an escapee from a mental hospital who only speaks through the voices of others. The actor, James Kevin Ward, does some great impressions, including Nicholson, Popeye, and several characters from the original Star Trek. But once the interesting characters leave the screen, we're stuck with Adam again and his pursuit of the profound. It's a long trip, which drags in many places. In fact, it's the longest hour and a half movie I've ever seen. And the finale hardly makes it seem worth while, at all.<br /><br />I discovered this movie playing on HBO one day by waking up too early and clicking on the TV. That'll learn me. Next time I'll try harder to sleep in.	0
This failed exercise in satire or commentary on the human condition easily earned a place as one of the 10 worst movies I've ever seen. I'm seriously considering buying a copy, if I can find one dirt cheap, to chase away unwanted company. It's honestly that bad. I view it as some kind of anti-personnel weapon. If you're the kind of person who just has to see a train wreck to witness the carnage, then this movie is a gem. Just to be fair, Kelsey Grammar's character has 1 line that almost works, but doesn't quite. Other than that everything in this movie strives to be insightful, but misses the mark by approximately the distance between earth and the nearest pair of colliding galaxies. I usually can appreciate a book or movie where the protagonist suffers from some sort of existential angst, but the angst presented here is so unbelievable and over the top, and the movie doesn't even address the nonsense it presents in any valuable way. If you are familiar with the term "word vomit" then you may get some picture of the cinematrocity. Oh, and the narrative structure is ill conceived, pretentious and amateurish. It has failed on both style and substance. If you really hate someone, invite them over for a double feature of this movie and "The Terror of Tiny Town," an all midget western from the 1930's and put them in restraints with their eyes forced open "A Clockwork Orange" style. But that probably violates some provision in the Geneva Conventions.	0
The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.<br /><br />Horrible.	0
What if someone made a horror movie that was completely devoid of plot?<br /><br />Well, I think it would probably end up a little bit like this one. I don't think I've ever seen a move was so steady it its slide from hackneyed (at the beginning) to complete crap (by the end). I only stuck with it, because I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get worse. Well, up until the very end, "Necrophagus"/"Graveyard of Horror" proved me wrong.<br /><br />Who would have suspected that a movie with an undead lizard-man, evil grave-robbing cultists, and mad scientists tossed in for no discernible reason could suck this bad? One would think there'd at least be some humor value... but not here.	0
Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is "schrecklich". The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments).	0
Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested. This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden (Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law. Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men, bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy, rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto.	1
From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before… in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.<br /><br />And that's what happens in "The Love Light", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.<br /><br />The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a "picturesque squalor" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by "picturesque luxury"… ); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with… a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean "Ich Liebe Dich" but "Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea"…<br /><br />Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed… ) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.<br /><br />From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed… ) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes… a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.<br /><br />But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.<br /><br />As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in "The Love Light", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl!… but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.<br /><br />And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress.	0
I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible.	0
This is a family movie that was broadcast on my local ITV station at 1.00 am a couple of nights ago . This might be a strange decision on the part of the schedulers but THE REAL HOWARD SPITZ is a rather strange film , strange in the way it doesn't want to upset its audience . Come on there's nothing kids like more than sadism and that's why Roald Dahl was such a popular author for children . It also explains why DOCTOR WHO was such a successful show across the world . In this screenplay you're just dying for pulp fiction author to do something nasty to the kids but this doesn't happen . I'm not advocating child abuse but to see Howard Spitz lose his rag at the little ones would have made the movie rather better . Can you imagine how much worse KINDERGARTEN COP would have been if the producers had gone all PC ? I mean if you're making a movie centered around a children's author who hates children shouldn't the story show and not tell ? <br /><br />Much of the problem lies with director Vadim Jean and you do get the feeling he doesn't know how to handle the material which is bad news for the movie . As someone previously noted the soundtrack is haphazard and Kelsey Grammar is very wooden . I guess he was trying to play it dead pan just like in that show he's famous for but it fails to work here and there's many scenes with quiet ridiculous camera angles which seem unintentional but which are very distracting . But at the end of the day the main problem remains that the potential is ruined because no one wanted to offend the audiences sensibilities	0
i have to rate this movie at a 10. i'm sorry but i think it's classic comedy. then, if you're rating it to other Madonna movies...well, what? you wanna tell me it wasn't her best movie ever? didn't Mira Sorvino win an Oscar for almost the same performance not ten years later? please, this movie deserves much more credit than it gets. plus, i like to think of it as an A+ sociological study into the lifestyles of the 80's. remember when you could shoplift from Sam Goody and Cartier in the same day? remember when women wore bushy eyebrows proudly? so it was no "Last Emperor", it was still good. there are certain movies i'd be willing to watch everyday. three, actually, that pep up my day and make me smile. if you like "Who's That Girl?" then i'd also recommend "Party Girl" and "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion".	1
I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would comment on this film.<br /><br />This film mistaken. One of them, as well as Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential viewers were turned off by the bad reviews.<br /><br />First, Madonna does an excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting. She was absolutely hysterical as was the film.<br /><br />Griffen Dunne is another person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor.<br /><br />As far as the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags, slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor.<br /><br />I know this doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of great fun.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />Gary	1
CAUTION SPOILER: At the end of the movie it is announced that the bridge collapsed just a few days after it was captured. The impression is that the attack was all for nothing. In reality, taking the bridge at Remagen was the last important victory for the Western Allies. It was the crossing of the Rhine that the Allies had been trying to achieve for six months. Because the Remagen Bridge was taken, the war ended in just a few weeks.<br /><br />The bridge only need to last for a day after it was captured. This was enough time for the Americans to send combat engineers and a large protective force to the other side, and they could then start building a series of pontoon bridges. The taking of the bridge was a complete success, and meant the that the end of the war was near, and would not last through the summer. Contrary to the cynical nature of the film, the victory was heralded with elation by the troops who did it. They knew how vital the battle was.<br /><br />This film has little to do with real history. It was more a reflection of the cynical nature of the time in which it was produced.	0
Nikki Finn is the kind of girl I would marry. Never boring, always thinking positively, good with animals. Okay, as one reviewer wrote, a bit too much peroxide, lipstick, and eyebrows (Only Madonna could get away with that). But that's why I love Nikki Finn, she's not your ordinary girl. She makes things happen, always exciting to be around, and always honest. Sure, she steals, but she doesn't rob or murder (unless you're out to do her in). She knows which rules can be broken and which ones should be obeyed. She knows what to take and what can't be stolen. If you need a favor from her, she's in 100%. Bottom line: She knows how to enjoy life. Nikki is always loving (which is why she has a way with wild animals), and completely dedicated to those she loves, and who love her.<br /><br />Who's That Girl? She's the girl for me.	1
When I see a movie, I usually seek entertainment. But of course if I know what genre the move is, then I will seek what it is meant to do. For example, if it is a deep film, I expect the film to rile thoughts up in my cranium and make me ponder what it is saying. But Who's That Girl? is not a deep film. But it is entertaining, nonetheless. It's a campy sort of film that's a joy to watch. There's barely a boring moment in the film and there are plenty of humorous parts. I've watched it when I was younger. The cast is always entertaining as usual. I had a small crush on Griffin Dunne even though he wasn't the typical male heartthrob at the time. Haviland Morris also stars. And late Austrian actress Bibi Besch is here too! Overall, a delight!	1
Why does everyone feel they have to constantly put this movie down? It is cute and funny (exactly what it is meant to be). Madonna wasn't out to prove herself as an Oscar calliber artist with this movie anyhow! She was just doing what the character called for, and she did it well. I loved her in this movie; it is my second favorite Madonna movie after Evita. The soundtrack is excellent too. It is no better or no worse than any cheesy 80's flick. To all the critics, just don't take it so seriously and you might have fun watching it. Madonna is a goddess!!!	1
In this TV special Jon is the one who needs a life. The highlight of his day is counting the tiles on the ceiling and rearranging his sock drawer. Not content with this forever, Jon takes Garfield to a self help group in order to meet people. How many people will be interested in a loner 20-something who's best friend is a cat?<br /><br />After several failed attempts at getting a girl, including one cringeworthy dance scene that rivals David Brents' fusion of Flashdance and MC Hammer in The Office (Disco's dead?, says Jon), he is more than shocked to find a cute girl who is as much as a jerk as himself. <br /><br />Naturally, they get on but Garfield is worried that John will forget about him and prefer having kids to a cat. Fortunately Jon's new girlfriend is allergic to cats. <br /><br />With slicker animation than past TV specials, this feels like a longer episode of Garfield and Friends.	1
This movie is so good! I first seen it when i was six, then i bought it recently and i still love it, im 15 now. Plus, the acting was great, and Madonna is my idol and she did a phat job! Alot of people didnt like this movie, and i still to this day dont understand why.	1
The Bridge At Remagen contains some of the most preposterous war time screenplay I've ever seen. Aside from the acting, which is wooden, no tank commander attacks with his tanks parked in nice neat rows, up the middle of roads, and with troops bunched all together with their arms not at the ready. The constant suicidal behavior set off my "tilt switch" so often I found it impossible to enjoy the movie. Apparently the screen writers and director have never been through actual warfare and never bothered to bring in an expert who had. This movie is the very antithesis of the excellent detail in Saving Private Ryan. Unless you are under 7 years old, I recommend watching something else.<br /><br />GB	0
Veteran TV director Ted Post treats us to a plodding, confused and ultimately pointless story lifted from Column B of the Harold Robbins Big Book Of Plots. Set against a smoggy Phoenix skyline, post-Charlies Angles Jaclyn Smith takes a star turn as "the woman whose eyes are mysteriously shadowed at all times" while JFK impersonator James Franciscus lounges around the fringes. <br /><br />Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and Bob Mitchum is in there too. Somewhere.	0
Filmed in Arizona by a mostly-foreign crew, "Nightkill" is one of the clumsiest crime dramas I have ever seen. Robert Mitchum (in a cowboy hat) trails recently-widowed Jaclyn Smith around, hoping to figure out if she had a hand in her husband's death. Jaclyn's wardrobe is of the Dale Evans variety and her dog is named "Cowboy"...seems as if somebody sure bought into the American myth that all westerners talk and dress like descendants of John Wayne! Screenplay by Joan Andre and John Case may have worked better if approached as parody; this mystery thriller just plays tame, with director Ted Post asleep at the controls. Don't be drawn in by the video box art of Jaclyn screaming while taking a shower. She does indeed take a shower in this film, but it is not revealing (nor does it further the murky plot one iota). NO STARS from ****	0
One of the funniest, most romantic, and most musical movies ever; definitely worth renting/buying especially if you have a taste for older style of cinematography.<br /><br /> The animals and the songs alone will make you smile while watching the movie. A definite must for Madonna fans. :o)	1
For late-80s cheese, this really isn't so bad. There are a lot of pretty funny throwaway one-liners ("That was grand theft!" - "Thanks!") and Madonna gives a fine performance; nothing award-worthy here, but that goes for Razzies as well as Oscars. I'm curious to know if the movie would have been better received if she had used her regular (pre-British influenced) speaking voice rather than the hyper-Bronxy accent used instead. Oh well. As a side note, I got to meet one of the actors who played one of the motorcycle cops through my work; he said that it was a fun film to work on but gave me the sad news that the actor who played Buck the UPS delivery guy died about a year after Who's That Girl	1
Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.<br /><br />What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.	0
Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.<br /><br />Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.<br /><br />Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.<br /><br />Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.<br /><br />The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.<br /><br />Dullsville.	0
Fantastic, Madonna at her finest, the film is funny and her acting is brilliant. It may have been made in the 80's but it has all the qualities of a modern Hollywood Block-buster. I love this film and i think its totally unique and will cheer up any droopy person within a matter of minutes. Fantastic.	1
I have never seen so much talent and money used to produce anything so bad in my entire life! As stated in other commentaries, a who's who of talent, such as, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Donald Sutherland, and many more were thrown together in a film that is not recognizable as an Agatha Christie story. I keep thinking of how it could be with the same cast, done the right way. <br /><br />The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies. The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone. Dave Brubeck's progressive jazz soundtrack had me wondering if the wrong video was in the the case from the rental store. The music became more and more offensive as the plot progressed. It's hard to say whether the soundtrack or the annoying technique of repeating information from earlier scenes, was more offensive. From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one. It is not an Agatha Christie movie. Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery.	0
I had seen this movie before, but I could not remember it was this fantastic: it has a fun plot, Madonna fumbles around the city with pumas etc. causing a commotion. And the music is just perfect! And the happy ending! Who´s that girl is a great choice for a romanticist like me. In my opinion this could be even the best Madonna movie I have ever seen! 10/10	1
If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch, nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet -- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the hapless future groom/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at how funny it really is.	1
Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.<br /><br />The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.	0
This film is on my list of worst movies ever made. The story is disconnected and it is difficult to understand what is going on or the reason for the characters' actions. All films need to have an inner logic, and this film just doesn't have it - the story doesn't make any sense. <br /><br />To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime. Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything. <br /><br />If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing! The movie is that bad!	0
Madonna gets into action, again and she fails again! Who's That Girl was released just one year after the huge flop of Shangai Surprise and two after the successful cult movie Desperately seeking Susan. She chose to act in it to forget the flop of the previous movie, not suspecting that this latter could be a flop, too. The movie received a bad acceptance by American critic and audience, while in Europe it was a success. Madonna states that "Some people don't want that she's successful both as a pop star and a movie-star". The soundtrack album, in which she sings four tracks sells well and the title-track single was agreat hit all over the world, as like as the World Tour. The truth isthat Madonna failed as an actress 'cause the script was quite weak. Butit's not so bad, especially for those who like the 80's: it's such a ramshackle, trash, colorful and joyful action movie ! At the end, it's very funny to watch it.	1
I am really sad that that this film has got so much negative criticism. I think it is a nice little comedy and really funny. The humour in this film is kind of warm and innocent and I like it. I also like Madonna's character and I do not agree that she played herself. She has created a character and a sympathetic one. <br /><br />My favourite scenes were the fighting scene on top of the sinking car and where Madonna climbs over the fence in a fancy dress to claim her love. The humour in the film has a slightly syrrealistic touch and perhaps it is not everybody's cup of tea. But it's their problem, not of the film. <br /><br />I found this film wholesome and sunny. In fact, the day I first saw it I was incredibly sad for some reason and this film lit up my day. And Madonna can act. Just take off your glasses of negative thinking.	1
"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."<br /><br />That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.<br /><br />I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.<br /><br />Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.<br /><br />Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.<br /><br />Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.<br /><br />This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.<br /><br />Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.	1
This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors ("Death On The Nile", "Evil Under The Sun") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot). The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat. (*1/2)	0
I love this movie!! Sure I love it because of Madonna but who cares - it's damn funny!!! *ALANiS Rocks*. When I first saw this film in the theatres back in 1987, I thought it was all out hilarious! Madonna is so funny and I love her dubbed accent and wacky/funky look. The all-time funniest part is when Madonna(Nikki) screams at a man who is about to get into a taxi. And also when Griffin Dunne(Louden)trips and falls at the apartment interview scene. **ALANiS Rocks**. Madonna's character Nikki steals/shop lifts and fools people throughout the whole movie - her hilarious antics are enough to keep you on the floor the whole time. "Didn't rob nothin', when you rob a store you stick up the cashier. We busted a few tapes, there's a bit of a difference" I love that!!! It's classic. ***ALANiS Rocks***. I don't know why this movie got slammed the way it did. I see nothing wrong with it - course maybe if you're a huge Madonna fan then whatever she does is just awesome. Anyone out there who wants to see some funny, classic entertainment then watch "Who's That Girl?" And another very important fact that of which should be known to all man kind or at least to all that exist, ALANiS will always "rock ya" completely to the end! So does Madonna in this film, and just entirely! Her acting is superb!	1
[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]<br /><br /> Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle were in a rut. They basically had no life at all. All they did was lay around and count the ceiling tiles. Jon even organized his sock drawer according to color and fabric. He needed a life. So he consults a book on the subject that tells him to meet a woman. A singles' bar was a great place to start. Unfortunately, when the music started and Jon hit the dance floor, we see what made disco die: Jon killed it. Jon next tried to pick up girls at the video store. He ended up feeling down in the mouth. Literally. The laundromat was no prize either when Jon and his would-be date get a glimpse of each other's underwear. Jon tried to act all buff at the beach, but soon he angered a real buff guy, which left Jon feeling, once again, down in the mouth. Literally. Jon then tried to pick up girls walking and jogging by. No avail. Jon pulled out a guitar and sings the blues. Unfortunately when he mentioned his cat being fat, a fat man walked up and stomped Jon's guitar. It was hopeless.<br /><br /> Fortunately for Jon, an ad flashed on the TV: an ad for Lorenzo's School for the Personality Impaired. It guaranteed a lifeless person to get a life in a few easy steps. Jon and Garfield attend the class. The building didn't exactly look the same way it did on TV, nor did Lorenzo act as peppy as he did on TV. Jon sat next to a pretty girl named Mona. So while Lorenzo taught his lessons of introducing yourself, checking your pulse, and pretending to speak a foreign language, Jon and Mona get to know one another. They leave together, forgetting all about Garfield. At home, Jon and Mona just sat on the porch and talked. Garfield was jealous of Mona for fear that she would take Jon away from him. Garfield envisioned the future: Jon and Mona get married, she moves in, and soon she gives birth to a little Arbuckle who is overjoyed at pulling Garfield's tale. Back to the present, Garfield would not stand for it. He tried to get Jon to get rid of Mona, until she started scratching behind his ears. But then Jon learned that Mona was allergic to cats. So that was basically the end of their relationship. But they still saw each other every now and then, and Garfield was sure to be with them.<br /><br /> Another hilarious Garfield TV special! This one was made during the run of TV's Garfield and Friends. Garfield was slimmed down somewhat. SOMEwhat. Since hie early 1980's cartoons. The scenes of Jon trying to pick up chicks is funny, so is the one where the fat guy stomps on Jon's guitar. Good ol' Lorenzo Music is back as Garfield. Thom Huge is Jon. Frank Welker (The third man of 1,000 voices) is Lorenzo. And June Foray (The woman of 1,000 voices) is Mona. If you like Garfield, then I recommend you see Garfield Gets A Life today! It, along with Here Comes Garfield, and Garfield on the Town, were just released on DVD! So check them all out today! You are guaranteed a good time. Hey, has Garfield ever let you down before?<br /><br />-	1
Don't listen to what the critics have always said about this cute, charming little movie. Madonna is GREAT in this clever comedy. I worked at a video store for several years and suggested this movie to lots of customers- no one EVER brought it back and screamed at me for telling them to rent it. Everyone always enjoyed it. It's actually a great movie for kids, too.	1
I kid you not. Yes, "Who's That Girl" has the distinction for being one in a string of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than "Desperately Seeking Susan". In "Susan", Madonna's character is relegated to being second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in an 80s style. While it may seem "cheesy" today, this is actually one of Madonna's best and one of her most underrated films.<br /><br />Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a rainforest(???) on his roof. <br /><br />This movie parodies everything. Rich people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of leopard reminiscent of "Bringing Up Baby". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG.<br /><br />Madonna is the queen of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the notorious movies "Body of Evidence" and "Dangerous Game". <br /><br />Some people say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know, you might be surprised and like it! <br /><br />Interesting note: One of Madonna's friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band.	1
If you like Madonna or not, this movie is hilarious!! I am a Madonna fan and did see this in the theater at the time of its release. However, over time it has not lost its silliness and pure fun. Sure there are some bad lines & cheesy acting but the whole film is just a screwball comedy with Madonna actually carrying the whole film with great bombast. She is cute,funny, and is the only comedic role of her movie career. Madonna usually just plays 'herself' in roles but watching her as Nikki Finn in this film, she really seems like somebody else for once. Of course the film is directed by James Foley (who filmed the dramatic and haunting 'At Close Range' with Sean Penn & Christopher Walken) and co-stars Griffin dunn ('After Hours') who is also brilliantly cast and has fun with the material. The story is nothing genius and don't expect some climatic ending but if you are ever in the mood to watch a fun, clean, 80's romp or if you are a Madonna fan than this is a MUST SEE. The Soundtrack is also very notable and contains 4 Madonna songs: the #1 hit "Who's That Girl", the #2 hit "Causing A Commotion" and the beautiful and one of her best ever ballads "The Look of Love''(Top 10 Hit in the UK) and "Can't Stop" a left over pop ditty from the 'True BLue' sessions the year before. It is only on VHS but will soon be available on DVD.	1
So, Madonna isn't Meryl Streep. Still, this is one of her first films and a comedy at that. Give her a break! Sure, the movie is mediocre at best and pales in comparison to its earlier counterpart w/ Katherine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby. For what it is, though(a piece of fluff), it's quite a bit of fun to watch. I've yet to hear anyone that slams Madonna's acting skills back it up w/ evidence or even adjectives other than "awful", "bad", or other such vague descriptive words. If you wanna see bad acting or justify the argument that singers should stick to singing, how about Whitney Houston?? She's had the most undeserved commercial success of any actress in history and couldn't act her way out of a hatbox. The American public obviously cannot discern the difference between a credible performance in a movie and star power. I think Madonna has always been at least credible in her movies. Get real people. Madonna-bashing is so 90's.	1
When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.<br /><br />"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).<br /><br />Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.<br /><br />You won't miss much if you skip this one.	0
I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium. <br /><br />"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.<br /><br />The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact. <br /><br />Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. <br /><br />Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.<br /><br />PS The concert was lousy.	1
Producers Golan and Globus should have been ashamed to release this piece of trash publicly. I know this is gonna sound cliched, but compared to this, the first "Hercules" of 1983 looks like a mature and exciting epic! This "sequel" is moronic, cheap, unredeemable, childish, phony, inept and BADLY ACTED. A landmark in bad cinema, and one of the few, few movies I've seen that REALLY deserve the lowest possible rating: no stars!	0
Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine – it's sort of a parody of the one Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie.	1
I LOVED this movie. You can't buy it, rent it, or find it... but it's a keeper.<br /><br />Wonderful chemistry between Braccho and Walken... and Ferrar....<br /><br />Terrific non stop action and reactions.... loved it.<br /><br />I've watched my pirated copy maybe 6 times in the last decade... each time showing it to someone who never heard of it.<br /><br />Find this movie and watch it. <br /><br />So many films are on TV over and over again - without any of the wit and style of this little film.<br /><br />I didn't know it was made for TV... my copy is an 8 track I pirated years ago... I hope it lasts.	1
A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love/hate type relationship between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a scam bigger than he's letting on.	1
It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss!	1
Finding this piece sandwiched between a stale prequel and a rehashed 80s machomovie on a UPN affiliate's midday Saturday program would be misleading. It deserves better and definitely uses its talented leads' best attributes to its maximum advantage. Bracco and Walken team to provide a movie that while perhaps predictable to those familiar with their genre, do the streetwise, 'troubled minds' routine that they are so good at portraying. For a chance to ride a psychological roller coaster a la Fuqua's "Training Day," dive back into the world of early '90s TV movies to find "Scam"!	1
Aya! If you are looking for special effects that are 10-20 years before its time, this is it. The glowing lightning bolts, fireballs, etc. look like they came from a cheesy 70's sci-fi flick. And yes, Hercules really grows; he's not being pushed on a cart closer to the camera!	0
The Adventures of Hercules has to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie I've yet run across. You would have to look far and wide to find anything that approaches the level of ineptness on display in this movie. Acting – Bad. Editing – Bad. Direction – Bad. Special Effects – Bad and Laughable. Plot – Bad. Lighting – Bad. Cinematography – Bad. Costume Design – Bad and Silly. Everything Else – Bad. Watching The Adventures of Hercules is about as enjoyable as a root canal. Even for a fan of bad movies, it's a real endurance test. This is one for either masochists or Lou Ferrigno completists (if any exist).<br /><br />Eight things I learned from watching The Adventures of Hercules: <br /><br />1. If you don't have the budget for real special effects, rotoscope a scene from the previous movie. It will look great - trust me.<br /><br />2. When on a quest to recover Zeus' thunderbolts, take time for frequent stops to oil-up you body. It worked for Ferrigno and his two Amazon companions.<br /><br />3. Any sword fight, use of magic, and just about all other day to day activities in ancient Greece created a sound very similar to a game of Pac Man or Asteroids.<br /><br />4. Some of the ancient Greek gods dressed like extras from Star Wars.<br /><br />5. If you need to pad your crappy movie's runtime, extend the title sequence by adding Star Trek style credits and throw in some overly grandiose music. It also helps if you've got a previous movie to pull scenes from.<br /><br />6. Fight scenes move along much smoother if the bad guys attack Hercules one at a time.<br /><br />7. William Berger did anything for money.<br /><br />8. I didn't think it was possible, but The Adventures of Hercules makes the first film, Hercules (1983), look like an Academy Award winner.	0
Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!<br /><br />Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.<br /><br />	0
From the fertile imagination which brought you the irresistible HERCULES (1983), comes its even more preposterous (read goofier) sequel: right off the bat, we get another unwieldy "beginning of time" prologue which even contrives to completely contradict these same events as set up in the first film!; a condensed montage of highlights from same is soon followed by a SUPERMAN-like scrolling credits sequence. Narrative-wise, here we have four rebellious gods who steal Zeus' seven all-important (but poorly animated) thunderbolts – a crime which, for one thing, sets the moon careening on a collision course with Planet Earth! Faster than you can say "nepotism", Zeus (once again played as a white-haired bearded man by the relatively young Claudio Cassinelli) sends his champion – who has now rightfully taken his place among the elite thanks to, one presumes, the almighty tasks performed in the first film – to find his blooming thunderbolts and avert the calamities in store.<br /><br />No sooner has Hercules (Lou Ferrigno – as if you didn't know) touched the earthly surface that he comes in contact with two attractive damsels (Milly Carlucci and Sonia Viviani) in need of his getting them out of distress!; the former (who would go on to become an Italian TV personality) seemingly has the ability to talk with the Little People(!) – which look uncannily like the tiny sisters from GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (1964)!! Just so they can swindle as much unutilzed footage from the first film as is humanly possible, the divine quartet of villains resurrect good ol' King Minos (William Berger again) from his skeletal slumber and pit him once more against his eternal enemy. Typically, Hercules is made to encounter a number of potentially deadly foes including a Gorgon – an awfully underproduced sequence which ought to have led to a surefire plagiarism suit had the film-makers behind the much superior CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) bothered to watch this flick (complete with the same "reflection in a shield" come-uppance and preceded by the muscleman letting the audience in on his tactics before executing them as if to show us how clever he is)!! And just to make it crystal clear that he wears his influences on his sleeve, Cozzi has Hercules and Minos turn into a cosmic version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" for one of their battles and later still, King Kong gets to grips with a large snake, an encounter lifted straight out of the classic 1933 original. I swear it: this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth! <br /><br />As had been the case with the first film, the cast is full of old reliables like the afore-mentioned Berger, Cassinelli and Venantino Venantini (as a sorcerer with a truly bad hair day) and up-and-coming starlets – not just Carlucci but also Maria Rosaria Omaggio (as a younger Hera!), Serena Grandi, Pamela Prati and, once again, Eva Robbins (whose costume here easily outcamps her appearance in the first film); for what it's worth, Pino Donaggio's score for this one is recycled from musical cues featured in his soundtrack for the previous film. If you have stuck with this review so far, you must have realized by now that this is one of those movies that is so unbelievably bad that a reviewer is forced to choose which course to take: either dismiss it in one unflattering sentence or spend an undeserving amount of time dissecting its flaws. I'm sure I've left out some of its ineptitudes but I wouldn't forgive myself if I failed to mention the single greatest laugh-out loud instance in the whole movie which almost made me fall off my chair (yes, it even surpassed the afore-mentioned animated titanic duel for me), namely the décor of the rebellious gods' lair which is in the shape of a giant marble…kettle!!<br /><br />At this stage, one might well wonder why I gave this film (and its predecessor) a rating instead of a (not entirely unjustified) BOMB; in the past, I've had various protracted online discussions on whether one's star rating of any particular film should reflect the overall artistic quality or its sheer entertainment value… but these are two instances where I deemed it necessary to be consciously influenced by the latter in settling on my final rating. I don't know: maybe it's because I'm in a "sword-and-sandal" state-of-mind at the moment (with some 10 more respectable examples scheduled for the coming days!) but, after all, uncharacteristically for me, I decided to add these two films to my DVD collection simply based on the fun I had with them in this recent revisit – and that alone must count for something, no?	0
I am a huge fan of Harald Zwart, and I just knew that I had to see this movie, even though I can't say I'm a soccer fan. But watching this just filled my heart with joy, and I had a great time in the movies watching it.<br /><br />Bjørn Fast Nagell does a tremendous job directing this movie, and even though you notice the main characters are new at acting, they grow with the movie and makes it what it is. Even though it is supposed to be a soccer movie, there is surprisingly little soccer in it. The whole idea is to show the six guys making up the word N O R W A Y on their trip to the World Cup in soccer playing in Germany this year. <br /><br />If you're only gonna see one Norwegian movie this year, this is the one..	1
This was a great movie! It was a completely enjoyable adolescent fantasy. So what makes a movie great? Technical details? I think that if that were the sole criteria, our culture would be the poorer for it. So this movie is to "The Godfather" as new wave music is to Mozart. The point is, it is one of the best movies of it's type I've seen. The women are all beautiful (as are only seen on California beaches when movies are being made). It has a little of everything, a kind of battlestar gallactica meets baywatch meets the playboy centerfold video meets Wayne's World. There is plenty of charm and a reasonable (albeit predictable) storyline that keeps you interested until the next bit of eye candy graces the screen. Joe Estevez may not have his brothers career, but does a good job of bringing focus to the story as the eternally adolescent Uncle Bud. Contains plenty of expected absurdities such as female rock band playing without the guitars plugged in. (Was that intentional?) If you're attracted to the box, rent the video, you won't regret it. As is promised, it is good non-violent erotic fun!	1
Although coming after three Star Wars, Krull & countless others, this movie would look outdated in the 1950s... 1 SFX mostly consist of 1970s videogames effects such as bolts etc; annoying after a short while. You also get a SFX creature that looks like a poor man's version of some tier-IV Harryhausen monster.<br /><br />2 sets are mainly ruins in the countryside, with papier-mache temples and miniature cities or abodes that makes 1950s Japanese monster movies look like flawless perfection.<br /><br />3 Plot is paper extra-thin...Hercules must find Zeus' seven golden thunderbolts stolen by conspiring gods & zombie tyrants.<br /><br />4 action mainly consists in retarded, muscled-up Hercules ( check the variety of facial expressions ) wrestling cheap 1970s videogames effects.<br /><br />5 acting award goes to Milly Carlucci (third Carlucci show-biz sister with Anna & Gabriella ), which says all.<br /><br />6 SFX make other tier-II Italian salad bowl movies such as L'UMANOIDE & STAR CRASH look like masterpieces.<br /><br />Well, considering that Ferrigno's main acting exploit consisted in impersonating a retarded green monster, wearing a whig and green espadrillas, we ought to be lenient.<br /><br />Watch it & forget about it.	0
<br /><br />JURASSIC PARK III *___ Adventure <br /><br />Sam Nell (The Dish), William Macy (Happy Texas, Fargo), TZ(a Leoni (Family Man)<br /><br />A better title would be: ESCAPE FROM THE ISLAND OF REALLY MEAN DINOSAURS. But then no one would need to see the film. In this sequel, a rag-tag group pays a visit to the island of dinosaurs to rescue the teenage victim of a hang-gliding accident.<br /><br />ACCESS HOLLYWOOD reports JP3 began filming without a completed script. That explains why the film seems to have little or no purpose other than to demonstrate state-of-the-art special effects. Sure, there are a few clever scenes and some moderately funny bits, but no meaningful plot line to tie them together. The dinosaur puppets and animation in JP3 are very good to excellent, and more numerous than ever. But the overall film experience can not hold a candle to the original JURASSIC PARK or even JP2.<br /><br />JP3 is a mercifully short 90 minutes -- the last 10 minutes of which is credits. Even at that, I found myself frequently checking my wristwatch. The audience I saw it with left the theater in silence.<br /><br />A better bet: see the movie LEGALLY BLONDE.<br /><br />Dave	0
Is this a bad movie?<br /><br />Of course, what were you expecting from a movie called "BEACH BABES FROM BEYOND"?<br /><br />It is a "BABES in BIKINI" movie and has no pretensions of being otherwise. Given, this is not "A ROOM WITH A VIEW" or "SCHINDLER'S LIST." If you wanted a film like "A Room With a View" then you would not be looking at Beach Babes from Beyond. But if you are looking for a good Babes in Bikini movie with almost no plot, this is the one for you. This flick delivers on what it promises and then some. It is pure 100% adolescent fun.<br /><br />There were lots of BABES in and out of bikinis. The movie was quite funny and great to watch. These were some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on home video.<br /><br />Every high school kid should watch at least one bad movie like this. This is actually one of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. So unashamedly, I say again...If you are going to watch only one "Babes in Bikini" movie, this is it.	1
I would put Death Wish 3 in the same box as Stallone's Cobra and Commando. The box that I would sell for $2 at a garage sale with all the videos inside. The story is about the main character coming back from the previous movies' success to ruin it all with this load of trash. Why did the makers want to destroy the reputation of the past 2 films with this cheap junk. The story is so lame that had to be a outrageous sequel. I mentioned Cobra earlier because it has the same mood, that one man can kill 20 or 30 gang members without a scratch. Both this movie and Cobra were bent on showing the hero firing his guns at hip level and the enemy falling in large numbers. Police officers spend hours at the shooting range so why did they get gunned down by gang members firing aimlessly from their hips? This movie was so bad I thought for a minute it was Death Wish 4.	0
JP3 lacks the Spielberg touch. It's an all-out assault on the senses featuring "in your face" dinosaurs. Watching this film was a bit like a roller coaster ride from hell. <br /><br />The script is lame; it simultaneously asks and then leaves too many questions unanswered. Also, we don't really get to appreciate the humans in the film for all they're worth. For example, William H. Macy is too great a talent to have to compete with dino-thugs for our attention. And Laura Dern was especially sympathetic in JP1; in this film, she's barely a blip on the radar screen.<br /><br />The whole JP3 experience was t o o m u c h. Too much noise, too many surprises, too many characters dying off, too much predictable, gratuitous violence. <br /><br />Word to the wise: vote yourself off this island.<br /><br />(I rated it a 3 for special effects; I took off the other 7 points for having absolutely no originality.)	0
Did people expect "Jurassic Park 3" to be full of surprises? Not one moment of it is worth it. Many elements could easily scare people out of the movies...and it's not the dinos! Tea Leoni...I think she's a great actress, but I'm sorry to say that this time she reached the bottom line. I wonder if she happened to strain a vocal chord while shooting the movie....Laura Dern...she's ok, but why not be more noticeable in the movie, maybe exchange smart dialogs with Sam Neil. Alessandro Nivola - "have you ever heard of something called facial expression? Fellings, emotions..."..he's got to work harder on that! Sam Neil, no big deal. The soundtrack...got to change that record, or you get tired of it. My applause goes to William H. Macy, a talented actor who I've never seen playing a bad role....unfortunately he can't save the movie, nor can the well computer-created dinosaurs.	0
I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down (cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from the old Batman series).	1
This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent, brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from watching it the first time.<br /><br />Don't be put off by the fact that this film comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling performance as the stepmother. <br /><br />While it has its scary moments, this is not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond!	1
This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.	0
We open in a doctors room of some sort. A girl is escorted to a seat across from the doctor. He asks her questions. Silence follows. He continues to ask questions, ignoring the girls obvious traumatised atmosphere.<br /><br />The story is about two girls who are taken home, after spending some time in a mental home after an 'incident' that happened before hand. They are greeted on their arrival by their trying-way-too-hard-to-be-nice-but-so-totally-evil Stepmother, who the girls obviously hold resentment for. As time goes on at home, the evil Stepmother finds new ways to torment the girls. And, to top it all off, there is a vengeful ghost that is far from helping the girls' recovery...<br /><br />This film is amazing. It has twist, turns, and definitely leaves you a lot to think about without not making sense. The relationship between the two girls is so heartwarming, it almost makes you cry at some points (I know I had a teary moment of two, specifically 'the cupboard scene'). But what I love most about this film is the total feeling of dread all the way through to the rolling credits. The soundtrack is faultless, the furnishings in the house, and the use of colour are fantastic. A pure joy for the eyes. This is a definite must-see for all Asian Movie Fanatics. Or ANY sort of movie fan! An easy 10/10.	1
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen...<br /><br />It's so full of details and every time you see it you'll find new things... Like then the father is in the shower but still only hears one voice, and when the girls flute, they can't do it at the same time cause then there would be two girls, and there aren't. <br /><br />I have some problem finding out, about in the middle of the movie their "Uncle" visit them, but why does his wife freak out?!? Else a fantastic movie.!!! The best Asian movie ever.<br /><br />I hope people will enjoy it. There have been so many movie, where the main character is skit-so (The machinist, Secret Window and so on), but this movie is way better than them!!!	1
"Tale of Two Sisters" has to be one of the creepiest films I've seen recently. In the end there is no actual supernatural element, despite what one is led to expect throughout the film. The story seems to be about two sisters, who, upon returning to their father's home after some sort of absence (later revealed to have been a stay in a mental institution) are forced to deal with not only a seemingly schizophrenic and possibly bi-polar stepmother who lashes out at the younger of the girls when the mood strikes her and cheerfully tells them she's prepared a special dinner at another time., but some presence as yet unexplained. It is later revealed that the younger sister is dead, and exists only in the troubled minds of her older sister, who was unable to save her, and her step-mother, who was callous enough to let her die. Much about the specifics of the strange family is not revealed in the film, but it definitely leaves a viewer with a creepy feeling and a nagging hint of confusion. Definitely not light viewing; watch this one when you really want to think about what you've seen. It's a hell of a puzzler.	1
How sad it is when a film as wonderful as "Jurassic Park" slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. The newest sequel, Jurassic Park III, has given no thought to characters, a story, or pretty much a script, and instead relies on non-stop dinosaur action, which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. The dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology, after 7 years of CGI advancements, it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. The introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make.<br /><br />Go see "Shrek" again.<br /><br />	0
Number 1 was really great summer popcorn fun. It was the modern Jaws.<br /><br />Number 2 is best summed up by Jeff Goldblum in the movie about being the stupidest idea in the history of stupid ideas (or something like that).<br /><br />Number 3 is the obituary notice...JP has achieved all it ever will. <br /><br />Once they realized they had no fresh ideas they should have just let sleeping dinos lie.<br /><br />That said. Movie is ok if you don't mind knowing you already have seen it before.<br /><br />	0
I had been looking forward to this movie since Lost World came out. It didn't bother me that Lost World wasn't as intellectual as the original, and here, I was just hoping for a good monster movie. It was all about "Dinosaurs eat people." However, it was disappointing even on that level.<br /><br />For starters, there were not enough people to eat, and while I'll keep it a secret how many people get eaten, it was not enough. Also, while there was no shortage of variety in the dinosaur community, there were not nearly "enough" dinosaurs. And many dinosaurs, like the spikey-back-and-has-a-club-on-its-tail-osaurus, just made cameos and didn't do much considering how cool they are.<br /><br />(START SPOILERS) Then there were the Pterodactyls. The figures I've read put their body weight at about 15 pounds, while the movie made them look closer to 300. Worse, they didn't get to eat anybody, or even splatter them on the rocks by dropping them from high up. There was no ending to the movie, either, it was just, all of the sudden, credits. (END SPOILERS) I'm left wondering if the edition I saw was missing 40 minutes of film.<br /><br />My only conclusion can be that they taught the Pterodactyls to stick their long beaks stealthily into your pockets and get your $7. Go rent the Carnosaur series; at least you won't be disappointed.	0
Another Asian horror movie packed with intense, and creepy moments. Another Asian horror trademark is the complexity of the plot, which is here as well. MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!<br /><br />The movie starts pretty simple - two sisters go to live with their dad and stepmother after being put in a mental institution after their mother hanged herself. The sisters seem very hostile towards their mother - especially the elder one - and they seem to ignore their father. All goes smoothly until the mother locks the young sister in the wardrobe and the elder sister tells her father. Then it hits you, "your sister has been dead for years now" It turns out the older sister is still not recovered from the death of her mother and what we didn't know is that the wardrobe the mother was hanged in fell on the younger sister and killed her as well.As for the stepmother she is the alter ego of the older sister - revealed when the stepmother (actually the sister's alter ego) is sitting on a couch when the real stepmother walks in! I hope it has been made clearer for confused Asian horror fans out there.<br /><br />Finally - my favourite scene is the scene where the father invites friends over for dinner and one of the friends starts to choke which erupts into a panic attack. Very creepy! 7 out of 10	1
What can I say about this film that won't give you any preconceived notions when you see it? Very little. The plot has to do with the return from hospital of a teenage girl after she broke down. What follows after that is the movie. It is one of the creepiest most mind blowing films of the past several years. Everything about the film is just slightly off center and leaves you feeling ill at ease well after the film has ended. It is not a perfect film. The film has problems in its final half hour which make an already confusing story, even more confused.(If you've read any number of other comments here on IMDb and elsewhere you'll know that a great deal of time has been spent trying to unlock what actually is going on) I'm not sure what I actually think of this film beyond the fact that it scared me and disturbed me in ways that most well known horror films ever have. If you like horror, and don't mind not having everything clearly summed up I suggest you try this since it will more than likely make your skin crawl.	1
To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint<br /><br />Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.<br /><br />As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.<br /><br />In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently)	0
(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.<br /><br />Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.<br /><br />This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.<br /><br /> The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars.	0
Disgused as an Asian Horror, "A Tale Of Two Sisters" is actually a complex character driven psychological drama, that engulfs the viewer into the problems of a seemingly normal family. I was really surprised at the depth of this movie. Director Ji-woon Kim's decision to focus more on telling a story rather than providing cheap scares, has proved a correct one. Creating one of the most ingenious new horror movies.<br /><br />"A Tale Of Two Sisters" tels the story, as it's name suggest of two sisters Su-mi and the younger Su-yeon, who after spending time in a mental institution return home to their father and apparently abusive stepmother. From then on we witness how the sisters deal with their stepmother's gradually rising aggression and erratic behavior. To say what would happen next would be to be spoil the entire experience. So I'll just leave it at that.<br /><br />The plot is very tightly written. With the characters nicely fleshed out. Ji-woon Kim's focus on a small cast offers a much more detailed view on them and their relations to one another. Furthermore each of the four main cast has a vastly different role and type of character. From the protective Su-mi, the weaker Su-yeon, the visibly uninterested father to the stepmother's frantic and later deadly behavior. There is great sense of mystery, with a lot of the plot not revealed up into the end and even after that the movie still leaves a great room for interpretation. Even after watching it once, the viewer will be compelled to see it at least once more so that he can gain a better understanding to it.<br /><br />The actors superbly fit their roles. It is especially hard to create strong, emotional scenes in psychological movies but it is a great joy when one succeeds in creating them and this is a prime example of such a feat. Ji-woon Kim's direction is slow paced and gripping, building up tension for the film's horroresque scenes. While few in number those moments are strong and quite frankly terrifying. The cinematography and score are top notch further helping to establish an atmosphere fitting that of a psychological film.<br /><br />"A Tale Of Two Sisters" is a demonstration how the horror genre is in fact so much more than a simple thrill ride. With it's strong focus on character and mystery this is one complex movie that could easily seduce you in watching it again and again just so that you can understand it better.	1
This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away.<br /><br />Norway is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!!	1
It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10!	0
typically, a movie can have factors like "arousing", "good feel", "sense of purpose", "plot", etc. There's always something that can be taken out of movies, its just a matter of how compelling the reason is, for me to own it in my collection. 'Tale of two sisters", as they call it when it was released in my country, has tremendous feel and an eventually (mostly) self-explaining plot. i love horror movies that revolve around a house. titles that come to mind are "The Others", "The Haunting", "The haunting of Hell House". this movie will be a another great example that i will remember. the movie had extremely rich colour, in the way the house was decorated, in the clothes that the characters wore, in the open-skied daylight scenes that is in contrast to most horror movies, which, typically makes use of desaturated tones and gloomy environs (think Honogurai mizu no soko kara, Dark Water, which is another show i like) that gives this film a sense of aesthetics and joy when it wasn't in its, more, gripping moments. the characters are extremely believable. this may be partly attributed to the familiar setting of this movie. maybe domestic issues are easier for both myself as well as the actors to identify with, and the actors become their characters with exceptional finesse. the director toys with timelines, in order to give the audience the story in bits and pieces, allowing them to come to their own terms of interpretation, instead of presenting everything in a linear fashion. this is a positive aspect of this film, in my opinion, and, perhaps, it is my interpretation of this movie that allows me to find it enjoyable. i would definitely look out for this on DVD.	1
This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.<br /><br />Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.<br /><br />	0
I was disappointed with the third film in the "Death Wish" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of "Highway to Heaven" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend.	0
You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.	0
I must say I'm an avid horror movie fan, and currently I can't get enough of foreign horror. Since US horror really depends too much on gore.<br /><br />This movie is fantastic. This movie reminded me a lot of M. Night's SIXTH SENSE. The way the film was directed was great. The director took his time to set everything up. It took about a good 40 mins just to set the movie up into a horror movie. I thought the movie was just a drama. This movie just builds up and the pay off isn't too much.<br /><br />I've never done this before, but this is the main reason I liked the movie.... I actually screamed out loud because one scene just startled the hell out of me... which is kinda pathetic.... but for a film to do that, it's great.	1
The idea is not original... If you have seen such kind of story before, you would know what the ending would come out after watching for the first twenty minutes... the script, the positioning of the actors and the screening is too obvious... If you haven't seen such story before, it is definitely a good experience, you will enjoy the twist at the end...don't forget to watch it again after you know the "truth", you will even more enjoy the plots... Even though I have a right guess at the very beginning, I still couldn't help stick on my seat till the end...<br /><br />Conclusion: A must see!! This one from Korea is better than any recent movies of the genre from Japan...forget Hollywood!<br /><br />Don't miss it!!	1
If you consider yourself a horror movie fan, chances are you've seen Hideo Nakata's Ring and Dark Water. They're superb, and Ring's making its way smoothly into Hollywood (maybe Dark Water will be adapted soon too?). While Ring is almost 100% pure heart pounding and nerve breaking, a tale of two sister is both nerve breaking and mind twisting.<br /><br />Along with The Other I consider this Korean flick a brilliant and smart ending horror movie. The only flaw this movie has is some consider its first 20 minutes rather slow. It's actually typical with Korean and Japanese movies. I consider it carefully planned rather than slow, think of it as "calm moment before the storm". With thorough introduction of characters, imho viewer will get involved more intimately with the character, one of Korean and Japanese movies strongest point.<br /><br />Like Ring, a tale of two sister doesn't overdo ghastly appearance. Rather they let our mind do the intimidating job itself. That way it's scarrier and horrifyingly classy at the same time. I won't be surprised if Hollywood remakes this movie after bringing Ring and Grudge/Ju-On over(This flick is not that good by the way, I rate it 5.5). Don't miss it!	1
To most of us, life is an unfolding process of love. For others like Soo-mi, however, it is dominated by darkness and fear. Based on the Korean folk tale Jangha and Hongryun, Kim Ji-woon's brilliant Gothic horror story A Tale of Two Sisters revolves around two sisters, Soo-mi (Lim Su-jeong), and Soo-yeon (Mun Geon-yeong), who are part of a dysfunctional family that live together in a creepy Victorian-style mansion. Feeling alienated from the world, they cling to each other for survival with the older Soo-mi obsessively protecting the younger Soo-yeon against danger. For Soo-mi, however, not coming to terms with the circumstances surrounding her mother's death means mental illness and a mind at odds with reality.<br /><br />While we may recognize staples such as haunted houses with apparitional sightings, doors that open and close on their own, a cruel and overbearing stepmother, and other events of high strangeness, A Tale of Two Sisters superbly explores deeper psychological meanings including the inability to let go of inner demons and the misplaced desire for revenge. Soo-mi says "Do you know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost." There is a time line but it is left for the viewer to unravel. The plot cannot be summarized, only suggested and the film keeps us wondering whether what is happening on screen is objective or subjective.<br /><br />In the film's opening, Soo-mi, an obviously disturbed young woman, is being questioned by a doctor in a setting that looks like a mental institution. When the doctor asks her to describe what happened "that day", the film flashes back to when Soo-mi and Soo-Yeon return to the home of their father Moo-hyeon (Kim Kap-su) and stepmother Eun-joo (Yum Jung-ah). The stepmother is hostile and resentful and the father is passive and distant but it is obvious that it is Soo-mi who is really hurting. As the girls try to readjust, they are constantly frightened by a presence in the house, which may be nightmares or supernatural occurrences.<br /><br />Soo-mi sees a figure at the foot of her bed that hovers over her and oozes black blood, a dinner scene in which the guest apparently sees a ghost hiding under the sink and goes into convulsions, a monster emerges from between the legs of one of the sisters, people mysteriously disappear from photographs, and many other maniacal schizophrenic devices to keep the viewer dangling on the edge of insanity. While we sense that much of the story is the projection of someone's mind, we do not know whose and the film keeps us constantly challenged, at least until an important clue is offered in the film's second half.<br /><br />Shot in gorgeous low-light cinematography, A Tale of Two Sisters has a unique elegance and other worldly beauty that transcends all the scares, and there are plenty. It is haunting in more than one sense of the word and its images may stare back at you when you least expect or want them to. While the film may not offer the weary traveler much in the way of light, it shows us where we can end up if we opt for the darkness. In the words of a wise observer, "Blame is never the answer - whether it is blaming yourself or others. Rather, the answer lies in stepping out of judgment entirely - both of yourself AND others. Forgiveness and understanding have great power of healing."	1
When i went to see this i thought, i liked the first two and thought that they were very suspenseful so this one should be good also. WRONG! There was NO suspense and they don't explain about the new dinosaurs! When i was done watching this i had lost all respect for Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton but then it turned out that it wasn't directed by Spielberg or written by Michael Crichton! This movie was going through "the motions." i thought that this movie had absolutely no plot and i thought that no one should waste their money to see it.	0
Three words: Piece of Art. This film is just great. It's beautiful, sad, frightening and thought-provoking at the same time. The score constantly stays in my head, the acting is wonderful the scenery scary and beautiful at the same time.<br /><br />It was more by chance than on purpose that I saw this movie. At the time I decided to watch this movie I was just bored and read lists of Asian films, which maybe good. Well, I saw the title "A tale of two sisters" which sounded very interesting. Then I read the summary of the plot and decided "You don't just watch this film, you've gotta buy it". Said, done. I bought this film and was hooked from the very first minute.<br /><br />The plot kept me interested from the beginning till the end; the twist near the end of the film made me scream. I really didn't see something like this coming. And the ending scene made me cry...it just made me cry. It was so sad.<br /><br />Well, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a film that combines an interesting plot, with scary scenes and atmosphere. Although you should be aware of the fact that the ending is, as I mentioned before, a very sad one. But this just fits in the mood of the film, doesn't it?	1
How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.<br /><br />But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The "new" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector "Joe Johnston" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new "Punk" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague	0
If there is such a thing as beautiful horror, this film is one of the best in this genre. It is a horror movie, which despite not being void of gore scenes relies more on psychology and masterful building of the tension in order to create thrills. And it is one of those movies so beautifully filmed, where each scene is a full world of symbols and details, all serving the scope and genre that it can be called but beautiful.<br /><br />It is not an easy story, with two sisters returning to their father and step-mother mansion after having spent some time in a psychiatric institution. They cope hardly with the death of their mother and they try to protect a world of theirs, defending them against the adult world. So the film seems to be at its most external layer. Actually the film slowly evolves to something very different, at slow pace, but no frame is lost to convey the sense of thrilling beauty, so I will not say much more. Watch it, it is one of the best in the genre of Far East horror films that conquered recently the world cinema and it really shows that they succeeded to do it for good reasons.	1
Let me just say - I love the horror genre to the extent that I see every single one that I can get my hands on regardless (except really low quality b-movie horrors which I could do without) and recently have become a big fan of Eastern horrors. Little did I know that a Korean horror would be the one that tops my list beating off heavyweights such as the Japanese Ringu (or the American Ring), or even quality US movies such as the Sixth Sense and The Others, and the widely acclaimed Hong Kong horror 'The Eye'.<br /><br />Previously 'The Ring' had stood as my favourite horror but it seems to me that I prefer the beauty of 'The Tale of Two Sisters' any day - the story is extraordinary and rather open to interpretation thus allowing repeat viewings although chances are you'll want to watch this again and again just because the movie is so masterfully shot... the story is likely one of the best in the genre to date. The acting is top notch too from the entire cast and the scares when they come have the potential to rattle you like anything within the Ring - I did find myself glued to the screen at those points unable to take my eyes off. <br /><br />Still I am glad it didn't come back to haunt me later that Sadako/Samara did from the Ring - after all such feelings are unpleasant and The Tale of Two Sisters leaves you with an uneasy feeling, but one that hopefully won't leave you without sleep but leave you satisfied that you have seen something quite special. But do remember.. if you don't understand the plot after the first viewing, a repeat viewing is more than advised.. I personally didn't have time for this since it was late so I flicked through scenes on the DVD, some numerous times until I had a good synopsis in my head and after looking on the net, seemed Ihad pretty much nailed it on the widely agreed interpretation. And the satisfaction from solving a puzzle like that is wonderful.<br /><br />All in all - a masterfully crafted horror that is unlikely to produce the same 'level' remake (its been purchased by Dreamworks) simply because of the Korean content and everyone is advised to catch this in the theaters or on DVDs while they can... its one of the best you will get. Unfortunately due to the type of movie this is, there is no way to even talk about the story without spoilers so its best to do what I did - watch it without knowing a single thing except its 'a tale of two sisters'! And be prepared for something that is unlikely to be matched for some time.	1
This movie certainly deserves to be placed within the genre of horror, but not for obvious reasons. The horror of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not with sudden shocks or large helpings of CGI guts and gore; it is a psychological horror movie which piques the viewer's curiosity from the start and builds a suspenseful aura of mystery and questions throughout. Best of all, the ending does not provide a clear answer, pushing the viewer to analyse what they have seen and make up their own mind about what really took place.<br /><br />Do not be put off by the seemingly slow pace at which the movie begins, and don't expect to be jumping out of your seat immediately. This is not the conventional hack-and-slash movie with orchestral stings designed to make you scared of nothing in particular. "A Tale Of Two Sisters" slowly builds an atmosphere of terror, a terror of the unknown and a fear of things which evade explanation until the very end. Even when the final conclusion is revealed, it is not so heavy-handed and obvious as to make the entire film fall neatly into place. The movie requires its viewer to reflect back on what they have seen and to try and square this with the frightening revelation of the final scene. Some things will still be open to interpretation, and this is one of the joys of watching a film such as this.<br /><br />The true fear of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not in shocks or conspicuous scares; it is a psychological, gut-wrenching horror that defies convention and expands a genre to proportions hitherto unexplored by the traditional horror film. It is no exaggeration to say that this film stands apart even from the so-called 'Asian Horror' genre. Indeed, it would be a mistake to align "A Tale Of Two Sisters" with films like "Ringu" and "The Grudge". This movie can be understood from a variety of standpoints, some requiring no suspension of credulity, others embracing the supernatural wholeheartedly.<br /><br />Whichever way you choose to interpret this film, it is one that demands an open-minded approach, rewarding viewers regardless of their preconceived notions on Asian cinema or horror in general.	1
I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.	0
Every high praise word fell way short before the height of this movie. This movie is the true example of how a psychological horror movie should be.<br /><br />The plot seems to be a bit confusing at first viewing but it will definitely explain a bit about what's going on and you really want to view it for the second time. But after second viewing you will start to join the pieces together and then you will know how amazing a movie can be.<br /><br />A word of advice for slasher flick fans stay away from this movie. This is not your dumb ass teenage slasher movie, in which you just switch off your brain and sit in front of the screen just to see big b**bs and lots of blood.<br /><br />If you want to heighten the psychological horror factor of this movie then watch it all alone with a great home theater system that supports Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1ch, without any of your ill mannered friends that crack jokes on a really tense situation. And don't forget to switch the light off.<br /><br />My points on different aspects:-<br /><br />Direction = 9/10 Acting = 8/10 Atmosphere = 10/10 Sound Effect = 9/10<br /><br />Total = 9/10	1
I hate football!! I hate football fans! I hate cars! but this film was the funniest thing I have seen in quite some time. <br /><br />I was given the great opportunity to see this film at the weekend, and all I have to say is I laughed till I cried, and when is it going to be available in the UK and Denmark. Girls, this is one football film you will need to see, its hilarious!<br /><br />The fact that this film started out as some crazy commercial for a telephone company is just amazing, the guys may not be well known actors, but this is good down to earth real humour, with real people, and I for one applaud them for taking this to the screen.<br /><br />WELL DONE!	1
The finest short I've ever seen. Some commentators suggest it might have been lengthened, due to the density of insight it offers. There's irony in that comment and little merit. The acting is all up to Noonan and he carries his thankless character perfectly. I might have preferred that the narrator be less "recognizable", but the gravitas lent is pitch perfect. This is a short for people who read, for those whose "bar" is set high and for those who recognize that living in a culture that celebrates stupidity and banality can forge contrary and bitter defenders of beauty. A beautiful short film. FWIW: I was pleased at the Picasso reference, since I once believed that Picasso was just another art whore with little talent; like, I assume, most people - until the day I saw some drawings he made when he was 12. Picasso was a finer draftsman and a brilliant artist at that age than many artists will ever become in a lifetime. I understood immediately why he had to make the art he became known for.	1
Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics, and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time.<br /><br />Based vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out.	1
Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.	0
This isn't so much a review of A Tale Of Two Sisters as it is a discussion of some of the smaller plot details, so I advise you NOT to read this review if you haven't seen the film, because doing so will absolutely ruin a few surprises for you.<br /><br />In a way A Tale Of Two Sisters is far from original, at least from a purely superficial aspect - some of its iconography is taken straight from Ring or Dark Water, while the storyline itself (especially what Brendt Sponseller calls the "rubber reality" aspect of the narrative) is reminiscent of films like Fight Club (lead character interacts with someone created in their mind), Mulholland Drive (character creates alternate reality in a psychogenic fugue), as well as other minor aspects of Lost Highway, Jacob's Ladder, and basically every film under the sun dealing with mental illness, plus Amenabar's films (The Others, Abre Los Ojos), Memento (particularly with regards to the torturous nature of memory), et al. Thankfully all these similarities do not detract from the film's overall emotional impact, and I personally found A Tale Of Two Sisters an extremely moving and rewarding experience.<br /><br />Many people have commented on the "confusing" nature of the narrative, but I personally found the storyline to be fairly self-explanatory, even if it is in part portrayed in a non-sequential manner. The narrative only becomes confusing for some because, midway through the final third, the story switches from a purely subjective setting (ie. Soo-Mi's warped perception of reality) to an objective one, with a flashback at the end explaining the origins of Soo-Mi's nervous breakdown and subsequent mental illness. The shift in emphasis is bound to throw some people off guard, but structurally I found it somewhat reminiscent of aforementioned Mulholland Drive (even though we're not dealing with a character's perception of reality via a dream but instead their own schizophrenic tendencies - something which, in turn, reminded me of another Lynch movie, Lost Highway). To be honest, I don't really regard A Tale Of Two Sisters as a Horror movie as such, but rather a tragic story of a family's breakdown as well as an honest look at a character's mental illness (and I hasten to add that fans of psychoanalytical cinema are going to love this film).<br /><br />That aside, the cinematography in A Tale Of Two Sisters is incredible and visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this side of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. The performances are also fantastic without exception, and I expect to see more of the four lead actors in the future; not to mention the music, but then east Asian films without a great soundtrack seem to be few and far between these days.<br /><br />It's very likely that some people will look past the finer artistic points of A Tale Of Two Sisters and simply dismiss it as "yet another Asian horror film", oblivious to its aesthetic beauty and honest psychoanalytical approach. But then each to their own. If you can ignore some of the film's platitudinous aspects and simply take it for what it is at heart, ie. an extremely tragic, heart-breaking story, then I see no reason not to recommend it.	1
I watch many movies, but presently my genre number one is Asian horror. I have just bought this DVD and I initially found "Janghwa, Hongryeon" an intriguing but confused film, since I had not understood many parts of the story. But I saw in IMDb Board a message titled "Explanation of a Masterpiece (all your questions answered) Faster load", written by opiemar, and I was really impressed with the high quality of the explanations this user provided to viewers like me that missed points of the story. I would like to congratulate opiemar for his excellent work and suggest him to write a correct summary of this movie in IMDb to help and guide other viewers.<br /><br />In the end, I agree that "Janghwa, Hongryeon" is a great Korean film, but I do not give ten in my vote because very few people can afford to see the same movie more than once, like this film demands, and without the great support of opiemar, I would not be able to understand the story as a whole. I intend to see this movie again in a near future. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Medo" ("Fear")	1
Two sisters, Su-mi (IM Soo-jung) and Su-yeon (MOON Geun-young) return home with their father (Kim Gap-soo). Eun-joo (YEOM Jeong-ah) welcomes them but Su-mi's manner is bitter to her. Su-mi hates Eun-joo because the father let her act like the house wife after the sisters' mother died. Seeing her attitude, Eun-joo is getting to treat the sisters coldly and there grows a tense atmosphere among them.<br /><br />As if called in by the atmosphere, series of mysterious things occur in the house. When Su-mi is hanging her dress in her wardrobe, there have been already hung a lot of dresses of the same design. When she put her diary into a drawer, she finds another diary of the same kind there. When she is sleeping in her bed with scared Su-yeon, a nightmare awakes her and she finds a woman standing on her -- and a hand dangles out of the woman's skirt!<br /><br />Mysterious things occur to the other people, too. On the evening of next weekend, Eun-joo's brother and his wife visit the family and they have a dinner together. Eun-joo cheerfully talks about a crazy man she met when she was a child, but nobody is interested in her talk. She says the crazy man annoyed the brother, but he says he doesn't know anything about the man.<br /><br />Listening to their talk, the brother's wife has a panic.<br /><br />After the dinner, the conflict between Eun-joo and the sisters becomes at its worst. Eun-joo pulls Su-yeon into a wardrobe and locks her in it. Su-mi saves the crying-out sister and complains to their father what Eun-joo has done to his daughter. But his response is unexpected. "Give me a break." says he angrily, "Su-mi, please. Don't make me tired any more."<br /><br />And the following words out of the father's mouth are more shocking than what they have seen in the house.<br /><br />To tell the truth, I hate horror movies. Although I seated myself at a theater because my intuition told me the movie was something different, I was regretting what my curiosity had made me act when it started showing. The regret, however, had changed into joy for expectation ten minutes later.<br /><br />This film is a tragic mystery more than a horror -- painful more than horrible; beautiful more than sensational. That may have a hard core horror fan disappointed, but for a mystery fan like me, this film is a must see. (9 out of 10)	1
I first saw this film two years ago in the cinema, and fell in love with this dark tale of two brooding teenage sisters coping at home in their large country house with their father and step-mother. Their relationship with their step-mother is strained to say the least, with the step-mother appearing to be increasingly becoming unstable in her battles with the younger girls. The film though slants with Oriental style ghost effects and horror, which adds a strange and unsettling aspect to the story that on first viewing is not clear, but is all the more intriguing.<br /><br />The direction is incredibly good, and the acting is stunning, with the step-mother in particular incredibly good swinging from one mood style to another in the film. The large house adds eeriness, and there are enough points in the film where you will jump out of your seat. This film to me clearly shows why Korean cinema is possibly the best most original in the world at the moment. You simply don't get anything like this in the Western World, sadly,and really i can see it being influential on film makers around the world in the next decade.<br /><br />Highly recommended viewing in my opinion, a real joy and scare...	1
I just saw "A Tale of Two Sisters" last night and really enjoyed it. I've been a big fan of Asian horror films recently and think that this is a strong entry from South Korea. There aren't many jump out at you scares as in the usual American horror film, but the director does maintain the off-kilter and foreboding mood very well, especially in the awkward character interactions with each other. Most of the scares are more conceptual and plays on everyone's "there's something under the bed" fears from when they were a child, but in this case, it's the closet and the sink. I also liked how the director was able to capture just how dysfunctional this household is through scenes such as the first dinner that the characters have together. He's also good at revealing people's inner life and fragility through simple scenes such as the stepmother wiping off her make-up in the mirror or her sitting in front of the flickering TV. I think this film is mainly an exploration of guilt and the consequences of living with that guilt hanging over you.<br /><br />MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD (DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE TWISTS OF THE MOVIE REVEALED) I was following the story pretty well, but did start getting confused during the bag dragging part. However, I think the flashback at the end definitely tied everything together. The film is very much like "The Machinist" in the way two of the character's joint guilt eventually leads to mental breakdowns and delusions.<br /><br />Here's my interpretation of the film. The Su-Yeon that we see after the girls supposed return to the house is either the delusion of Su-Mi or the actual ghost of Su-Yeon that only Su-Mi can see and interact with. The initial stepmother that we see is, in my opinion a delusion of Su-Mi. There is a real stepmother, however, and she first appears in the film when she's wearing the gray pantsuit. I believe it's the real stepmother that the father is talking to on the phone throughout the first part of the movie and she doesn't appear until he pick her up and brings her to the house. The stepmother before that point is imagined by Su-Mi (perhaps part of her split personality?) That explains the bizarre dinner party sequence when the stepmother's brother looks at her like she's crazy and doesn't remember anything that she recounts. I think it was Su-Mi acting out her stepmother part of her split personality. The film shows this later in the bag dragging scene and scenes such as the stepmother wiping her make-up in the mirror, which is revealed later to actually be Su-Mi wiping her make-up in the mirror.<br /><br />I think the ghosts in the house aren't entirely imagined by Su-Mi, and are either of Su-Yeon or the mother or both. In the final flashback, it is revealed the Su-Yeon was wearing the green dress and had the hairpin in her hair when she died. This is the green dress that they showed before on the ghost sitting at the dining room table while the stepmother was looking under the sink. Also, it's the hairpin that Su-Yeon was wearing in the flashback that appears on the floor when the stepmother is looking under the sink.<br /><br />The real stepmother, in the end, gets punished by the ghost of Su-Yeon who comes for in a scene a little bit like The Ring. After that, the flashback scene ties it all together in terms of how both the stepmother was mainly responsible for her death, while Su-Mi unintentionally played a supporting role.<br /><br />I wonder if the "mother" that Su-Yeon sees when she goes up to her room to cry, in the flashback, is a ghost already. Perhaps by that point the mother had already killed herself in the closet. That's left ambiguous.<br /><br />Other things that are suggested, but not clearly explained in the film is that it seems like the stepmother, at some point, was a nurse, perhaps taking care of the mother and somehow may have contributed to her death too. It's not clear when her relationship with the father began and whether it caused the mother to kill herself. It's also suggested that the mother had mental issues too, requiring a nurse. The stepmother alludes to this when she tells Su-Mi, you're beginning to take after your mother. I don't think she meant just physically.<br /><br />Also, if we accept that the initial stepmother that we see is actually Su-Mi, then there's the suggestion of incest too, since the father sleeps with her. Is that why Su-Mi freaks out and shouts, "Don't touch me" each time the father reaches for her in a later scenes? Is that the "filthy things that you've done" that she alludes to in a later conversation with the father? This film is interesting in it's capacity for different interpretations. A few of the scenes, however, were kind of derivative, such as the woman in the black crawling around scene, which reminded me of the herky-jerky movements of Kayako in the Ju-On/The Grudge films. Also, the final scene where the stepmother finally gets her just desserts is reminiscent of The Ring. Furthermore, just the idea that some characters may be ghosts is taken from "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others".<br /><br />Overall, I enjoyed it, however, and it will be interesting to see how the Hollywood remake (that's already in production) turns out. I have to be honest, I liked both "The Ring" and "The Grudge", so I'm not one of those snooty types who insist that remakes can't be good too. One remake that I'm really excited about is "Dark Water" coming out this summer. I haven't seen the original Japanese version yet, but both films are definitely on my to-see list.	1
In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.<br /><br />I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.<br /><br />Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.<br /><br />This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.<br /><br />I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.<br /><br />But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.	0
This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them – a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces." <br /><br />The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown – a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. – but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more – a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.<br /><br />The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed – for example – the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.<br /><br />Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind – he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that – when completed – bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.<br /><br />I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!	1
Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.	0
This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".<br /><br />My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.<br /><br />And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.<br /><br />Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.	0
I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story –though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale… is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.	1
It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one.	0
Wow! i think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on!	0
This movie could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...<br /><br />It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :(	0
Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye" – which are praised all over the world – simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really "get it" for a full 100%.	1
Imagine every stereotypical, overacted cliche from every movie and TV show set on the streets of Brooklyn between 1930 and 1980. Populate it with a cast of interchangeable caricatures instead of actual characters. Throw in a mix of "period" music and wailing electric guitars during the "rumble" scenes. Then pass the time trying to figure out (or care) which of the Deuces is going to be killed in the (anti)climactic final rumble.<br /><br />I'll give this movie points for not being just another romantic comedy, teen slasher, explosive action movie, teen sex comedy, kiddie musical, or Oscar-nomination vehicle. But bringing something new or interesting to the street-gang tragedy genre might've been nice.	0
Maybe it was the fact that I saw Spider-man the day before I saw Duces Wild, but I do not think that there can be any excuse for this movie being as bad as it was. The cast was there to do it, but it seemed as if once they found them selves with a decent cast they had to try and make them fit into the movie. The only problem was that they did not fit. I did not like any of the characters and the story was sketchy at best. I left wondering why i spent my money on this movie.	0
The Beauty. The Terror. The Poetry. The Horror. The Innocence. The Guilt.<br /><br />Maybe that's just about all I should write in this comment for A TALE OF TWO SISTERS. The best thing is to just watch this movie without knowing anything about it. I myself didn't even know one single thing about the history of the two girls when I went into this movie. I just took a look at the nice cover-art, didn't even read the synopsis on the back and popped it into DVD-player. I only knew that it won several prices on festivals around the world and that it came highly recommended.<br /><br />The DVD-cover read "The Most Frightening Film since THE RING, THE GRUDGE and DARK WATER". Though the frightening-part might be right, you can forget about the rest, because the only thing A TALE OF TWO SISTERS has in common with those movie is... a ghostly apparition with long black hair. It's even a bit unfair to compare it with those famous Japanese movies, because this Korean movie has a lot more to offer and is in fact a bit more complicated and intelligent than those others.<br /><br />This movie simply is a small masterpiece, and here are some reasons (without telling anything about the plot): The movie itself caught me off guard at least two times with clever surprise-twists. And just when you think you've had the conclusion (whether you get it or not, that's irrelevant for the moment) and you think the movie will end... this movie goes on a bit longer. The cinematography is amazing, using bright colors during the day and dark shades at night. The camera-work is excellent with the director sometimes choosing impressive, if not, innovating angles. Some shots are pure poetry (e.g. the top-shot with the two sisters at the lake). It all looks very stylish. There are only four main characters, but the intrigue surrounding them is intense. The story itself starts a bit slow, but there's a lot of variety in tone and emotions to keep it interesting. There was even one scene (when the girls took off towards the lake) that suddenly had me remembering Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES. But when the horror kicks in, it's quite effective. There are also a few successful surprise-scares in it. Damn, I jumped right up from my sofa. The musical score is great, and at times when it's not supposed to be scary, I couldn't help but noticing that it had sort of an Italian feeling to it. A bit strange for a Korean movie. But nevertheless, a great score. So much care went into every detail of this film, including a perfectly balanced surround sound.<br /><br />I also think that calling A TALE OF TWO SISTERS just a horror movie is giving it not enough credit. It's more a mysterious horror-drama that works both on a psychological and supernatural level. No matter how you look at it, this is Asian horror that ranks way up there amongst the finest. It might not be gory, but it gets pretty scary at times and the subject matter is pretty disturbed. So if you haven't seen it yet, then find a copy, pop it into your DVD-player, go with the flow and make sure you give this movie your full attention for it's 110 minutes running time.<br /><br />There, I hope I did a good job praising it without spoiling anything.	1
Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder. <br /><br />There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.<br /><br />There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there. <br /><br />The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure. <br /><br />Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.	0
Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.	0
In a nutshell the movie is about a gang war in the 1950's. Leon, the leader of the Deuces, starts the gang after his brother OD's on "junk". He vows to protect the neighborhood. The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.<br /><br />The movie didn't really do it for me. The "Good Guys" weren't any more good than the "Bad Guys". Very little was shown to suggest that the Deuces really cared for the community. I suppose the writers were going for realism here, but I just didn't care which side won. None of the characters were likable, or even capable of drawing my sympathy.<br /><br />On the plus side the courtship between Annie and Bobby had some snappy dialog, and the acting overall was well done.	0
"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no "Basketball Diaries".<br /><br />Think of it as "West Side Story" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. "Deuces Wild" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem… and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.<br /><br />*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz	0
Worst movie ever seen. Worst acting too. I cannot imagine a movie worse then this. Nothing to see. No acting at all.T hey (actors) should look for another job. I cant't understand who was stupid enough to actually put money into this movie.<br /><br />I'm sorry for Eric Roberts. Must be tough...I cannot imagine how HUUUGE his mortgage must be to justify taking the job!<br /><br />The ladies in the movie...perhaps they better stick to XXX.<br /><br />As for the LEADING MAN...what a lead! He better be put on a lead and stay there! I can see him being more successful at barking rather than acting. <br /><br />Overall rating: Do NOt rent...DO NOT BUY!	0
Hehehe. This was one of the best funny road movies ever! I laughed so I fell out of the chair. With many Norwegian and foreign celebrities playing themselves. Harald Zwart is the producer, known for films like Agent Cody banks and of course One Night at McCool's.<br /><br />It is about Norwegian crazy fans, going to the world cup in Soccer in Germany 2006. And all sort of crazy fun that comes with it. It was hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. I haven't had so much fun in ages. Rumors say it will come a number two, but I do not know. It will be hard beating this one. <br /><br />recommended to everyone! It is a must see film. I was suppose to see it at the cinema, but I had work at the times it where shown. And been trying to rent it for a month, but all the time rented out. Got it today on DVD. Well worth it.	1
Eric Roberts "stars" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with "Lethal Weapon" electric prods.<br /><br />The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.<br /><br />Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.<br /><br />Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a "so bad that it's good" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO.	0
2001 wasn't perhaps Eric Roberts best year. Both Raptor and this came out. Watched Raptor a while ago and really thought it sucked and being Erics worst. But that had it´s share moment of fun and D-standard. This one doesn't have a thing.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Thomas is the name of the probably worst actor in these days. The story lacks any punch and the whole thing feels even slower than a snail breaking in curves.<br /><br />The two thing that stands out are Martin Kove and Eric Roberts. You could argue about their effort being good or what but compared to the rest they are above all criticism.<br /><br />I say thank you Roberts see you next time (and hopefully a better one).	0
Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite "beefcake" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon." He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending "John Woodrow" undercover as "John Wilson" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of "extras." Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.)	0
"A Tale of Two Sisters" is a brilliant South Korean psychological horror that left me speechless.The film offers some delicious moments of ghastly horror and is extremely creepy.The small cast of actors is truly excellent,with lead Im Soo-jung being especially memorable in the lead role.The direction by Kim Ji-woon is well-handled and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.The plot is slightly confusing,but some scenes are wonderfully eerie.The action is rather slow,but I was not bored in the slightest;I was extremely curious and intrigued.The house,where the film takes place looks incredibly menacing and isolated."A Tale of Two Sisters" is along with "Ringu" and "Kairo" one of the most original Asian horror films I have ever seen.Watch this masterpiece as soon as possible.My rating:10 out of 10.	1
This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even "Escape from New York," which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the "Escape" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't.	0
The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost/horror films from the East has been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay or similar.<br /><br />It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended. Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here.<br /><br />It is also genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of release along the way.<br /><br />If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it 10/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge "pleasure" from this film which I for one hope goes down as a classic.	1
'A Tale of Two Sisters', or 'Janghwa, Hongryeon', is a true masterpiece. Brilliant psychological thriller, heart-wrenching drama, and gripping horror all wrapped up in one beautifully orchestrated package. From the intricate plot, to the beautiful cinematography, to the absolutely perfect casting, every aspect of this film is extraordinary.<br /><br />For fear of revealing too much concerning the plot, I will just say it is very satisfying. While it may appear to be a little difficult to understand at first, it does a good job of explaining things in the end. And whether you prefer psychological thriller, drama, or horror, I promise you will not be disappointed.<br /><br />From a technical standpoint, its nearly flawless. The set, the cinematography, lighting, and especially the soundtrack, all are captivating. The waltz seemed an odd choice at first, but proved to be an ingenious choice.<br /><br />As for the casting, we're talking absolute perfection. I'm Su-jeong is totally convincing as the defiant, yet troubled Su-mi. Mun Keun- yeong is equally convincing as her emotionally traumatized sister Su-yeon. These two girls were magical on the screen. I will certainly be looking into their other films. Yeom Jeong-ah is deceitfully cheerful and hauntingly evil as the stepmother. Finally, Kap-su Kim gives an excellent performance as the weary, broken father.<br /><br />I truly love this film. If you have yet to see 'A Tale Of Two Sisters', I strongly recommend locating a copy. It is a real gem, worthy of anyone's collection.<br /><br />(10/10)	1
This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man!	1
Call it manipulative drivel if you will, but I fell for it. Sure, there could have been more character development. Yeah, there could have been better cinematography and less of a constant "movie of the week" score, but Ed Harris was impeccable, Cuba Gooding adorable and touching, and let's face it people, in real life, how many of us really get to know the motivation of others. Not many. We did get a little glimpse into the coach's motivation (a very provocative dialog in my opinion, not to be soon forgotten) so in my opinion, this was a lovely tribute to one human being who broke out of his "comfort zone" to reach out to another human being, and in the mean time, touched the lives hundreds more. A lesson we all need to me reminded of. Why is it that the right thing to do is so often the hardest thing to do? I recommend this beautiful little movie to anyone with a heart. You won't be disappointed. And bring your Kleenex. 8/10	1
I was looking forward to this movie. Trustworthy actors, interesting plot. Great atmosphere then ????? IF you are going to attempt something that is meant to encapsulate the meaning of life. First. Know it. OK I did not expect the directors or writers to actually know the meaning but I thought they may have offered crumbs to peck at and treats to add fuel to the fire-Which! they almost did. Things I didn't get. A woman wandering around in dark places and lonely car parks alone-oblivious to the consequences. Great riddles that fell by the wayside. The promise of the knowledge therein contained by the original so-called criminal. I had no problem with the budget and enjoyed the suspense. I understood and can wax lyrical about the fool and found Adrian Pauls role crucial and penetrating and then ????? Basically the story line and the script where good up to a point and that point was the last 10 minutes or so. What? Run out of ideas! Such a pity that this movie had to let us down so badly. It may not comprehend the meaning and I really did not expect the writers to understand it but I was hoping for an intellectual, if not spiritual ride and got a bump in the road	0
When the Legends Die is a powerful, moving story of an orphaned Ute Indian who goes on to become Tom Black Bull, a champion bronc rider. Raised in the old ways, Tom is given a white man's name and must adopt the language and ways of the white man to live in that world. Bitter about the role he has been forced into, Tom finds fulfillment doing one thing, busting horses, riding them to death, in the rodeo. The movie has Richard Widmark in the role of Red, the man who befriends Tom and acts as his manager. Red is a drunk who eventually dies in the story, which is about where the movie ends. The real story is completely ignored, the dark side of Tom Black Bull who develops a reputation as a killer of horses in the rodeo arenas. Oh well, you should read the book, this movie doesn't come close to doing the story justice.	0
Radio will have you laughing, crying, feeling. This story based on a true story is the perfect movie for a couple to view. There's enough for both. cuba Gooding Jr.portrays the title character to perfection. His performance is worthy of an academy award nomination.The compassion of the movie is obvious. The movie evokes many emotions. I sincerely enjoyed this film.	1
The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.	0
Excellent performances and a solid, but not overplayed story, helped this movie exceed my expectations. This movie was far better than I was expecting after some of the reviews I had read - but frankly those reviewers just got it wrong. Very inspiring and uplifting. Highly recommended!	1
I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.<br /><br />This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.<br /><br />I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.<br /><br />If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.<br /><br />What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.	0
Horrible acting with the worst special f/x I've ever bore witness too. It's bad enough I wasted $3 to watch this crummy pile of crap, but it's the hour and a half time I lost that I could've been doing anything else like getting a root canal or volunteering for jury duty. Getting drunk couldn't even help this video.<br /><br />To put it bluntly, I sincerely believe I actually lost a few IQ points during the course of watching this idiotic piece of mind-numbing "work"! Perhaps I should have followed my own advice this time. Never expect a decent film if it's written, directed and produced by the same person, and never EVER expect anything of value from Jeff Fahey.	0
This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).<br /><br />Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles<br /><br />A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.<br /><br />Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.	0
I thought this was a really well written film. I've heard of Radio the person before this movie was even created and I can't begin to describe how good Cuba Gooding Jr was in it. It will make the women cry, everyone laugh, and most everyone will leave smiling.	1
OK the box look interesting, the opening have great music and its kinda original, to that its all OK. But when the movie start...well its not my first videoville movie, i watched Ghost Lake, and its very similar of this movie except its ever worse here. The story at first sounded interesting but the whole movie look like a movie shot by a bunch of university student, with specials effect that me laugh, the blood look like a mix of red and white paint, the fire effect on the demon face look like it was done with a program i could buy at my local computer shop. All the movie is shot in day(very great for a movie supposed to be horror) and there like no gore(1 scene only and it look so home-made and not credible) and near no blood(it can be considered a great thing considering the look of the blood show) and 1 demon for the whole movie. The story is going nowhere , it give you the impression that it never start, there so much useless scene done only to give the movie the average duration time(when the demon search the guy in the dogs thing for about 4 minutes...) Way too much slow-mo things. Well lets just say this movie is a Z-series one and a very poor one. All cool idea lost themselves and you get a cheesy movie. It bored my all long and I'm not the guy who get bored very easily with horror movie, man i even like house of the dead and alone in the dark from Uwe Boll and you probably know the name for being one of the worst director but here it look too much like some guys wanting to make a movie for fun. Plus for us french speaker(tough i understand English i prefer to watch movie in my native language) there the usual videoville bad translation. In normal movie you can barely see its not the actor speaking(you have to check on lips etc) here you just have to listen to it and you know it. Very cheesy	0
From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.	0
<br /><br />Having read the unemployed critic's, review, I went to a screening of "Radio" not knowing what to expect. Thankfully, the unemployed critic now appears, to me anyway, a frustrated film director/movie critic. His review is callous and totally uncalled for!<br /><br />This is a movie that will make you laugh, it will make you cry and in the end it will give you a moment of pause!<br /><br />To paraphrase a line delivered by Actor Ed Harris in the final Barbershop scene "...and all this time that we thought we were teaching Radio, truth is...He was teaching us. He treats us all the time, like we wish we treated each other, some of the time!"<br /><br />Yes the movie tugs at the heartstrings. Yes it is emotionally manipulative and yes Cuba Gooding Jr. (In an Oscar worthy performance) is a little over the top at times (See the Christmas day dance scene) but you know what? SO WHAT! Every once in awhile the community of America needs to be reminded what tolerance can do for our great country. We need to be reminded how great we CAN be.<br /><br />This is a solid cast. I was particularly pleased to see S. Epatha Merkerson, portraying Radio's mother, do something outside of Law and Order. I always wondered, is Ms. Merkerson a great actor or is it the quality of writing delivered buy a strong cast on Law and Order. After watching this movie, it is easy to see that she is indeed a very fine actor.<br /><br />Also joining the cast in small but important and powerful roles is Alfre Woodard as the Principal, Debra Winger in a career-resurrecting role of Coach Jones's wife and Chris Mulkey as Protagonist, Frank Clay.<br /><br />We cannot over look Ed Harris's performance as Coach Harold Jones. After reflecting on this movie and having grown up in the Deep South my self, It is hard to truly appreciate Mr. Harris and his contribution to this film. As Coach Jones, Ed delivers a quiet, rock solid performance, that of a man on a mission. Coach Harris will not let the town or circumstances divert him from what he knows in his heart, is the right thing to do.<br /><br />If you see this movie, make sure you hang around for the end credits. You will be in for a treat as the real James Robert 'Radio' Kennedy, now in his mid 50's, is shown, still leading the T.L. Hanna Football team on to the field every Friday night.<br /><br />One final note. If you were a teen in the mid to late 70's, this movie is worth the price of admission, for the sound track alone!	1
OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.	0
<br /><br />Spoilers<br /><br />I'm going to be as kind as I can about this film (some people, including directors!, can get quite upset when reviewers speak their mind) so...<br /><br />There is a nice car accident and the opening credits look good and... that's it; everything else bites the big one. All the acting is appalling, the script is embarrassing, the special effects look like they were done by school children on cheap computers. All in all this film has serious bowling shoe tendencies.<br /><br />As a horror film it's not very scary and if it supposed to a "thinking man's" horror film well it succeeded on some level, I kept thinking that the end of this film is an awfully long way away. It may actually be an ironic look at bad horror films and I'm missing the point but I somehow doubt it.<br /><br />This is a complete car phone warehouse of a film and I could not recommend it to anyone, and it does pain me to say this as I eagerly await the resurrection of British Horror.<br /><br />If you don't agree with this review, that fine, it's just my own opinion, and I'm sure someone out there will love it (the director's Mum for instance).	0
Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.<br /><br />However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.<br /><br />Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it. <br /><br />MINOR SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.	0
Cuba Gooding Jr. is back on top! Jesus, he did a great job in this film! I LOVED this movie. Its one of those feel good movies that makes you want to run out and volunteer at a mission or something. Anyway, I would recommend seeing this movie in a heartbeat! Well worth the price of admission. And as for Cuba Gooding Jr., just give him his next Oscar right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	1
This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge – or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.<br /><br />The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.<br /><br />Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.<br /><br />The atrociously shallow performances don't help – Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here – a machine gun? A rocket launcher?! – and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.	0
I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.	1
This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen! The cast is an international one - Australian-pretending-to-be-British, stage American and a character with an English name sporting an unrecognizable "European" accent. What passable efforts in acting from this motley crew are totally undermined by a plot and script of especial inanity. So short were the shoestrings of this film's budget and the overall production values are so low that it would have no trouble winning a cinematic limbo competition. In the last twenty or so years we have seen horror films and stalk'n slash thrillers of extraordinary (though not necessarily "high") quality which have been made on no budget at all. Recent examples include the poorly made but totally scary "Blair Witch Project" and of course - the most recent - that low-budget winner, SAW, featuring practically unknown leads (Gary Elwes is just someone you don't remember even if you have seen him before). In DARKHUNTERS, it is shocking to find a known character actor, Dominique Pinon and Hollywood has-been Jeff Fahey struggling valiantly to save the film. It is embarrassing to see the once handsome leading man (Fahey) in corny makeup uttering bizarrely bad lines. I would have rated this film 0 out of 10 had that been possible!	0
I just got home from seeing "Radio." I've not seen such an inspiring story in a long time. My kids are ages 8 and 5 and I would like to take them so that they may "feel" the message as I did - you should seek to find the best in people and love them for who they are, not judge them for their differences. Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ed Harris both deserve Academy Awards for this movie. I don't know why we can't have more movies like this, rather than the junk that is served up at theatres on a daily basis.	1
Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as "a gherkin in a burger". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????<br /><br />Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.<br /><br />Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.<br /><br />At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.<br /><br />On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.<br /><br />All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.<br /><br />Darkhunters 0/5<br /><br />p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me.	0
This is a very moving movie about life itself. The challenges a handicapped person must face in a land that expects perfection is brought to the forefront for all to see and hopefully understand. It should teach the bigots of society that we are all humans, and while some of us are gifted with a mind, heart and sound body, there are decent human beings that exist in the world that are not as lucky, or maybe, we're the unlucky ones. We don't always see the beauty in the world because we're wrapped up in our 'blind' ambitions, and see it only in one light "what can this world do for me!!!". Maybe we all wish we were like Radio, a loving happy individual...who loves everyone.	1
Hey guys and girls! Don't ever rent, or may God forbid, buy this piece of garbage. I have rarely seen a film in any genre as bad as this one. The acting is actually worse than me and my friends did when we were 7 and in the 1.grade had to act in front of all parents and siblings. In fact, we would have been taken up to evaluation for the Oscars, if we were to be compared to the actors in Darkhunters. The story is terrible, the makeup is terrible, the filming is terrible, the set is terrible, the directing is terrible, etc. I can't actually find ANYTHING worth the money spent to see this film.. Maybe except all the cats, which my girlfriend thought were kind of cute. Please, use your money on other things than on this film.... I couldn't even see the last 15-20 minutes of the film, it was that terrible.. If anyone really liked this film, I would REALLY like to hear from you, and I will try to see if I can get you some counseling at a psychiatrist's office near you..<br /><br />0 out of 10, actually below if possible.. Not worth the DVD or tape it is on..	0
I don't even understand what they tried to accomplish with this movie, i mean really. You got this guy running from a bunch of cats, because he's dead, but in order to be really dead this girl has to shoot them? And they leave a corpse even though normal people can't see them because their dead? The script already has a hole in it the size of Nebraska, then you have the main character played by Susan Paterno who just drones up her lines in a monotone, boring voice and with so little emotion on her face she might as well have starred as a female terminator robot. It's absolutely horrendous and I don't even understand how I managed to see it all the way to the end of the movie. The end being just as stupid as the entire movie mind you, and with absolutely no reward in it for the viewer what so ever. They might as well have called this movie "the little movie that could choo-choo ka-choo."	0
As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more movies of this calibre.	1
It's a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter/hunted kind of story, but the director and/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity.	0
At what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.<br /><br />The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.<br /><br />The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.<br /><br />The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as "life's unwanted gherkins" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.<br /><br />But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.	0
It's hard and I didn't expect it... But it's really the worst film, me and my wife saw. Awful dialogs that extend incomprehensibly through time without any apparent reason except to fill time. The storytelling doesn't follow a comprehensive intelligibly way… everything is a mess. The action and the dialogs appear at jumps. The thing that disappointed me most was to see Dominique Pinon one of my French favorite actors involved in this… uh… I don't even know how to describe it without being polite… The rest of the actors where at the most poor. Susan Paterno made a terrible interpretation of her character, making a flat inexpressive performance. Poor special effects. I don't think that it was a complete waste of film but it's close to… If I'm to say I would advise everyone not to see this movie. I think it would be a complete waste of time. Sincerely I never though I would say something like that about a movie but… there's always a first time.	0
Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have ice water in your veins.<br /><br />It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio, are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle.<br /><br />Ed Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in the film. He gives Cuba the nickname "Radio" and what follows is an absoutely riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul.<br /><br />The movie is nothing short of a masterpiece.	1
Inspired by True events, Radio is one of the best acted, heart felt dramas I seen widely released in sometime. It definitely is one of the year's best films of 2003. <br /><br />Radio stars Ed Harris, who is Oscar worthy nonetheless in this film, as football coach Harold Jones. Coach Jones has been teaching football all his life and loves the game. However Coach Jones does not spend much time with his wife and daughter played by Debra Winger and Sarah Drew. One day Radio, played by Cuba Gooding Jr., in his best performance since Men of Honor, comes by the football field while the coach's team is practicing for the game. Some members of the team, then tie up radio and throw him into a building. They then bang on the building and finally Coach Jones suspects something is wrong. He comes over and helps Radio, who is frightened, and from that point on Coach Jones and Radio shares a very special bond. Radio becomes the highlight of every football game and really enjoys participating in the football games and at school events. He also becomes Coach Jones's main interest in life over football which at first was his main priority before both his family and Radio.<br /><br />The movie deals with all sorts of real life problems including what your priorities are life, accepting people for who they are even if they are different, death, and family relationships. The movie touches upon all those issues and more and is extremely well done and director Michael Tollin should be very proud of this film. The thing I liked most about Radio was how real it felt. The performances were like watching something in real life occur right before your eyes. Radio had a great mix of comedy and drama. Some parts were quite funny yet other parts were very serious and sad. <br /><br />In conclusion, I feel that Radio was very overlooked by Critics only getting average reviews. They must have there heads up there butts because its amazing how this film can only get 2 star reviews and something like school of rock can get 3 or 4 stars it doesn't make any sense to me. Also the performances as I mentioned before are top-notch and Oscar worthy. In my opinion, both Ed Harris, who I think is underrated as an actor, and Cuba Gooding Jr. should both get some kind on nomination for this movie. Radio is one my favorite movies of the year and gives me reason to still see some of the big Hollywood movies. My final rating for Radio is a 9/10.	1
This is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.<br /><br />I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.<br /><br />The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.<br /><br />This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!	0
Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It was enjoyable from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is about mentally challenged man who helps out with a football team.<br /><br />	1
This is a movie you'll either love or hate. I loved it. If you are looking for suspense, great special effects, action, sophistication, cynicism, etc. you won't find it in this movie. It is a feel good movie, sentimental, positive, uplifting. The heroes of the movie are Coach Jones (played by Ed Harris), a man of strength and integrity, and Radio (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) a mentally retarded man who finds a way to contribute to his world. I guess I didn't find this movie to be "sentimental hogwash" as so many did, because it felt very real to me. I know people like these. I've seen jocks who think it's fun to pick on the vulnerable. I've seen men of integrity stand up for the vulnerable. I've seen people who think high school football is serious business. I've seen people who know what really is important in life. Any of these people could have been people I knew. I did laugh; I did cry. I left the movie feeling good, remembering that there are people like Coach Jones and Radio in my world. If there aren't people like them in yours, you might not like the movie. If you don't like a movie that shows the better side of human nature, you'll hate it.	1
Radio was a very good movie, and honestly, i never cry in movies. But it had me pretty close to tears. It really got to me when Radio's mom died and he just wouldn't get out of his room. I felt really sad about how, if you were mentally retarded, you wouldn't really be able to understand death. I really liked the movie, and It's a must see.	1
I'm normally not a Drama/Feel good movie kind of guy, but once I saw the trailer for "Radio", I couldn't resist. Not only is this a great film, but it also has grreat acting. Cuba Gooding Jr. did an excellent job portraying James Robert Kennedy, a.k.a. "RAdio." Ed Harris also did a fantastic job as Coach Jones. I was pleasantly surprised to see some comedy in it as well. So for a great story, great acting, and a little comedy, I give "Radio" a 10 out of 10!	1
Hm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.<br /><br />I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.<br /><br />I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.<br /><br />Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :/	0
First of all, I really can't understand how some people "enjoyed" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!<br /><br />However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).<br /><br />Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this "thing!".	0
Radio is a true story about a man who did what he felt, in his heart, was the right thing to do. The viewer will be compelled to wonder what he or she would have done. The adversity that coach Jones and Radio both faced was both tragic and predictable. People did not understand; nor did they want to understand. But in the end, the power of circumstance forced people to understand and appreciate so much more than they did before it happened. Radio is a mentally challenged youth who understands very little, besides three of the most important things the are too often forgotten as we mature: Intuition, compassion, and love. Coach Jones is a high school teacher who cannot ignore the plight of the underdog who is just trying to play a bad hand of cards in the best way that he knows how. It was sad the way coach Jones and Radio met. The practical joke that terrified the life out of Radio was enough to make you want to severely punish, not only the boys involved, but every boy who knew what was going on and did nothing about it. However, on the positive side of the scale, the incident led to a friendship that would influence so many lives in the kind of way that most of us believe only happens in the movies. This movie is a real life fairy tale and not to be missed. Ed Harris was his usual brilliance. Gooding was flawless. Radio is an inspiration.	1
"Death Wish 3" is the movie equivalent of a shooting gallery. All the characters (apart from Bronson's Paul Kersey, of course) exist merely to be killed, either as "provocation" (the good guys) or as "retribution" (the villains). The director simply pours on the mindless violence (people even get burned alive and blown up), turning this into an urban version of "Commando" (and Charlie, like Arnold, rarely bothers to protect himself from the enemy gunfire). Fans of this short of thing (and, apparently, there are many) will enjoy it, others....beware. (*1/2)	0
This movie really is that bad, and I'm normally a sucker for bad movies, but this was too much. Seeing this is like OD'ing on pure SUCK. Now, you may think you've seen the bottom of the barrel. You may have waded through every title from Full Moon and Troma, all the movies of Edward D. Wood Jr, Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun and direct to DVD-flicks from faded men-of-action. You may even have seen Death Tunnel, Ghost Lake and a vast array of the movies that MST3K covered, but in their original form. But you do not know truly awful film-making until you have seen Darkhunters. And if you haven't, you shouldn't. Don't bother. Not only is this movie amazingly poorly written, directed, shot, edited, acted and splattered in crude, cheap aftereffects. First of all, it's a pretentious mess. But not good, Greenaway or Lynch-style pretentious or hilariously messy in an Ittenbach or early Waters sort of fashion. It's the kind of pretentiousness that comes when someone incredibly stupid thinks they've come up with something incredibly smart. Sort of like M. Night Shaymalan (sp?), only that man seems like a freakin' messiah when compared to this trainwreck (and this coming from a rampant Shaymalan hater). It's also boring. Not heavy going-type boring, which is okay, if the movie awards your patience. Darkhunters does no such thing. It's boring in a "Oh my fu(king God, if I see another shot of a cat set to an obnoxious audio cue I am going to fu(king kill myself!"-kind of way.<br /><br />Btw. anyone who claims to like this film is a boldfaced liar and anyone who claims this film is complex or deep knows what their mother is like in bed.	0
I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy<br /><br />I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy	0
This is, arguably, the worst of the major Ava Gardner films. Yes, she is gorgeous. But that can wear thin over time, especially after the corny and predictable movie ending.<br /><br />In this turkey, Robert Walker has to pretend that he's Eddie Bracken (which surely embarrassed him). Olga San Juan plays the Jane Powell (golly, gee) part. Dick Haymes plays a sort of dim sidekick (!), and Eve Arden plays Helen Broderick (and a host of other wise-cracking female semi-comedians). Yes, the film contains a major popular song, "Speak Low." But check out the other, entirely forgettable, pieces. Dick Haymes sings very well, of course, and so does the uncredited vocalist dubbing for Ava.<br /><br />The sets are cheap, the script is filled with clichés and failed humor, and Tom Conway looks as though he has been battling with liquor (as indeed he was). In short, if you want to see Ava in her prime, buy a photo and stay well clear of this movie.	0
I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.<br /><br />One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood. <br /><br />Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.<br /><br />The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue. <br /><br />The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.<br /><br />Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.<br /><br />In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.<br /><br />Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.	0
When naïve young Eddie Hatch, a window dresser at Savory's Department Store, falls for a statue of Venus and gives her a chaste kiss, Venus steps off her pedestal and gives Eddie more than he bargained for. This creaking example of what Hollywood can do to a Broadway musical manages to emphasize the inane story and eliminate most of the first-rate songs. The purpose was to make a safe, popular movie without too much investment while capitalizing on Ava Gardner's upward mobility to super stardom. Robert Walker as Eddie gets lost in a thankless role. Eddie's not just naive, but dithering and hapless. Gardner is gorgeous, but the only things that give the movie any life are Olga San Juan as Eddie's loving but jealous girl friend, Tom Conway as the suave owner of Savory's and Eve Arden as Savory's long time, wise cracking secretary. It's a role Arden could play in her sleep, and she's good at it. <br /><br />The musical opened on Broadway in 1943 and made Mary Martin a big-time star. The only point of a musical, however, is to have music. Since One Touch of Venus was intended to be a social satire of sorts, Kurt Weill, composing, and Ogden Nash writing the lyrics, came up with a series of stylish, witty songs and one masterpiece. Without the satire, or the clever songs or Martin (or an equivalent showstopper), the movie becomes just a weak comedy fantasy where much of the comedy is predictable and the fantasy is worked to death. <br /><br />Not only did the producers of the movie toss out almost all the Weill/Nash songs, they brought in the movie's music director, Ann Ronell, to write new lyrics for one of the songs that survived, turning sharp observation into lovey-dovey romance. Ronell was no hack; she wrote Willow Weep for Me. Wonder what she thought about while she replaced or tweaked Ogden Nash's clever work. <br /><br />The one bright spot in the movie is that Weill/Nash masterpiece. "Speak Low" is as great a love song as anyone ever wrote. It's given one of those ultra-professional and lifeless treatments by Eileen Wilson dubbing Gardner. Dick Haymes contributes a chorus. <br /><br />As for Ann Ronell, she was one of the few women in Hollywood to become a major music director, as well as composer and lyric writer. Yours for a Song: The Women of Tin Pan Alley is a fascinating documentary of some of the women who made it in the business, including Ronell, Kay Swift, Dorothy Fields and Dana Suess. And for those who would like to hear what little of the Weill/Nash score was recorded by the original Broadway cast, you might be able to track down the CD, One Touch Of Venus (1943 Original Cast) / Lute Song (1946 Original Cast). The music is paired with Lute Song, another Broadway show that starred Martin.	0
Despite some really scenic locations in the orient and some sporadically energetic music by Franco Micalizzi, this film doesn't quite reach the level of Joe D'Amato's similar efforts while staying just about as trashy. The author of the original book "Emmanuelle: The Joys of a Woman", Emmanuelle Arsan, directed and had a smallish role in this film, which mostly pornographically showcases a very young Annie Belle as she gets in a variety of oddball sexual situations. Her boyfriend, played by ZOMBIE's Al Cliver actually approves of her sleeping around and even persuades her to continue her practices even after the two of them are married! Orso Maria Guerrini drops by as a professor who is oh so usually married simultaneously to two women, one of whom is played by Arsan herself. Despite beginning promisingly and having a few hilarious lines of dialog like "can you see me with the naked eye?" ... "I can see you better naked!", the film shambles along plotlessly up until the less-than-spectacular finale. Much like D'Amato's EMANUELLE AND THE LAST CANNIBALS, the main characters are all in search of some lost tribe, but don't get your hopes up, there's no violence at all in this film, and not much sex either for that matter. Just a lot of nudity and silly dialog. I couldn't help but find some appreciation for this little film, if only for the completely cornball logic the film goes by.	1
I enjoyed the prequels, and found the relationship between Tucker and Chan previously hilarious. RH3, however, was a re-hash of the first two without the charm or humor. I think I may have laughed once - and it was during the NGs. Tucker was exceedingly annoying in this film, and his character didn't seem to have any purpose other than to bungle everything up in the most irritating way possible. Chan is always likable, but he seemed tired in this film. I was able to predict EVERYTHING - who the villain was, who the girl was, (SPOILER ALERT) who the good-guy-turned-bad-guy was, etc. I hope to see more movies from Tucker and Chan in their separate endeavors, but not in any more Rush Hour sequels. It's just too tired. I recommend a rental, but not a purchase.	0
'Radio' is a beautiful movie based on a real story of the mentally challenged James Robert Kennedy, nicknamed 'Radio', and the football coach from the T.L. Hanna High School, Harold Jones.<br /><br />Cuba Gooding, Jr. is excellent as Radio! I would never imagine to see him in a serious performance, specially because most of the movies I watch with him are comedies. Ed Harris is great as Harold Jones, but this actor IS great, so this is not anything new.<br /><br />The mentally challenged young man called James Robert Kennedy, always walk around the T.L. Hanna High School, without bothering anyone and almost not noticed. One day, when the football's ball is throw near him, he decides to stay with the ball, for the impatience of Johnny Cash, one of the best players from the football team and also one of the most unpleasant guys you would ever met. One day, Cash decides to punish James, mocking him with other football players and even go so far as to tie him up.<br /><br />When coach Jones discovers that horrible act, he stays angry and punish all the team, deciding for this day on to help James, who gets the nickname 'Radio' because of his passion for radios in general.<br /><br />The movie shows how Radio becomes an adept assistant, helping the team train despite hardships from the players, and even getting respect from basically all the people who lives in the small city. <br /><br />I would recommend this movie for everybody who wants to watch a real and beautiful story. It has a life lesson,specially showing us how a person can make a difference, even not being what we call ''normal''. Radio has a big heart and is incapable to hate anyone, and that's a thing that we all should apply to our daily lives.	1
Can a mentally challenged black youth be a catalyst to unite people in a South Carolina town? The answer appears to be that in spite of his handicap, James Kennedy, understood much more than what he was given credit for and went to become a fixture in the sports scene. Also, the film is saying how many of us overlook people with problems that can be helped if only we have the patience Coach Jones showed to the young man because of his own guilt in his heart.<br /><br />"Radio", directed by Michael Tolllin, is a formula film inspired on a true story. Yet, the movie is not a complete failure because of the inspired performances the director was able to get from his wonderful cast.<br /><br />Coach Jones is instrumental in getting the young man, who is called Radio because his passion for collecting them, involved in sports, a passion he discovers in this retarded man who has had only hard knocks in his young life. Coming from a poor background, Radio, lives with his mother who is protective of him and questions the coach's intentions. Radio is seen by the school kids as a mascot, at first, then, his sunny disposition wins him the acceptance of everyone because he is a good person without an ounce of malice in his body.<br /><br />The film owes a lot to Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. who make a great pair as the coach and Radio. Mr. Harris, one of the best actors of our times is never boring in anything he graces with his presence. He gets the essence of the principled coach who sees the possibility to make amends for something that bothers him from his past. Cuba Gooding Jr. is also at his best portraying the mentally challenged young man.<br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent. S. Ephata Merkerson, one of the best actresses of her generation, does interesting work as the mother of Radio. Alfre Woodard, another good actress plays the high school principle with style. Debra Winger, only has a few scenes in the film.<br /><br />"Radio", while being sentimental, will warm anyone's heart because it shows how we tend to see some people are in our society that we know nothing about and how quick we are to judge them. Michael Tollin puts a lot of ideas in the proper perspective for us.	1
Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.<br /><br />Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard. <br /><br />There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio.	1
For a series that was inspired by Kolchak, it's ironic that The X Files first attempt at a vampire episode should land squarely on it's ass. 3 has always puzzled me and - at the risk of sounding like the dreadful Hans Keller - I've often wondered if I'm missing the point. The story feels like a jigsaw that has pieces that don't match the box, and the result is you spending a cosy evening by the fire trying to match sky that is really sea. This incomplete feeling remains no matter how many times you revisit the episode and no matter how much attention you give it. I know that this review puts me in danger of being dragged to Whitby by teenage vampires who'll drink my blood while listening to Busted, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. I've always been a werewolf man myself.	0
You might think that a show about regular teens with superpowers would be interesting, but it's far from that. Take the concept for example: the main character(s) have a big secret that they hide from they're peers. It's just like Hannah Montana and That's So Raven. Next, the acting is just average. Selena Gomez seems to be half asleep through many scenes. Lastly, the jokes are either cliché or boring. If they're not using they're colorful, yet strange dialog to make us "laugh", they are throwing various props around the room. I really wish this show would use more original and entertaining material. In conclusion, Wisards of Waverly Place is a disappointment.	0
This was unusual: a modern-day film which was ultra-nice. In fact, it was so nice it bordered on being too hard to believe in parts. As I watching this based-on-a-real-life story, I was thinking, "nobody is this nice, this tolerant." Mainly, I was referring to Ed Harris' role as "Coach Jones." I think they went a little overboard on his character, but that's better than the reverse: showing him worse than what he was in real life. Odd to see Harris playing the role, too, since he has a long resume of playing nasty, profane characters.<br /><br />Anyway, I never complain about a nice, feel-good film, and it is nice to see a bunch of well- meaning, kind people. Those folks direct their friendship, love and compassion to "James Kennedy," better known as "Radio," a mentally slow high school kid played by Cuba Gooding Jr. The story takes place in the mid 1970s in South Carolina. Gooding does a nice job with the role, too. However, like Sean Penn's role of a mentally-challenged man in "I Am Sam," an hour-and-a-half of a character like this is plenty. After that, the loudness of those guys gets tiresome to hear.<br /><br />Note: It was interesting in one of the documentaries on this DVD to find out that, in real life, in took years for "Radio" to make his transformation, not months as shown in the film.	1
Not much to it but a validation of small town values and the embracing of a mentally challenged young man into its heart.<br /><br />I read some of the reviews and was surprised at some of the hostility it engendered. I felt Cuba Gooding handled the part with dignity and respect unlike Sean Penn's drooling fool portrayal in "I am Sam."<br /><br />The fact that this is based on a true story makes it all the more heartwarming. Sports are taken seriously in small town high school America (and elsewhere, I suspect) and I felt the portrayal of these competitive students opening their hearts to one less fortunate rang true, at least for me.<br /><br />The coach was never forced to choose between his daughter and Radio but rather came gently to the decision himself under Radio's loving and open ways. Very well done to all. 7 out of 10.<br /><br />Debra Winger, we need more of you in pictures!	1
Corniness Warning. As many fellow IMDb users already know, I'm not a corny, cheesy person. If you don't want to read this kind of review, then go.<br /><br />To tell you the truth, you're hearing this from a man who laughed through Titanic and almost broke his parents' tape from continuously rewinding the propeller scene.<br /><br />---Spoilers---<br /><br />One day, I went off to the theatres with two friends to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, last year in August. The boring trailers rolled on until one started off so calmly. It was for Radio. The moment I saw the trailer, I just had to see this movie on opening weekend. When that weekend rolled along, Scary Movie 3 was out too so many teenagers were there waiting in line that Friday night. It turns out the movie sold out and those teens were so desperate to see a movie, they went and also sold out Good Boy and Radio. I couldn't get a ticket and the following weeks, I was busy with more important things. About 5 months later, my friend rented Radio. He let me borrow it and I watched it in my room. I'll tell you this now, this is the ONLY movie I have ever seen that got me crying EVER. When Radio's mother died, it just came out automatically. The next day, I went off to Blockbuster and bought the DVD.<br /><br />Well enough of my stupid personal story, let me tell you about the movie.<br /><br />Cuba Gooding Jr. stars as a mentally challenged man nick-named Radio. Ed Harris co-stars and this movie is directed by Mike Tollin. Based on a true story, Radio is a teenager who has a life by spending most of his day alone. He goes around with a shopping cart picking up whatever he can and is always carrying a radio around. He's got his own collection. At the end of every day, he goes home to his mother. He never went to school until later in the film. One day, Radio passes by the local high school while the football team is practicing. A football flies over the fence and Radio picks it up and continues on. Ed Harris plays Mr. Jones, the football coach. They meet and this is the life of Radio.<br /><br />Throughout the whole movie, Radio and Coach Jones spend quality time together, both teaching each other things. It is beautiful to see how the movie goes to the highest joys, the lowest lows, and just seeing Radio live his life. You will laugh, cry, and live the life of Radio with him. This movie holds a special place in my heart along with Toy Story and others. This is a must-see for the whole family, by yourself, or if you're someone who just wants a great drama. Radio is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Radio will never be forgotten by me. Never.<br /><br />As Ed Harris' character said greatly near the end of the movie:<br /><br />"We're not teaching Radio, Radio is teaching us."<br /><br />My Rating: 8/10<br /><br />Eliason A.	1
This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less!	1
EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the "real" Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked "Simon Birch" and "The Mighty", you'll love "Radio" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal!	1
If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic "popular" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to "parodies" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth "wisecracking" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE.	0
I have no idea why people are so crazy about the show. It is so boring. The jokes are not even close to what we usually say funny. It's like, Alex say something that is not funny nor interesting and then suddenly there's a laughing sound background. My friend and I just looked at each other with blank look as if we asked each other, "What's so funny?!!". Seriously, every time we watched that show, you wouldn't hear any laughing or coughing. Just a blank look. So we stop watching it. I am personally a fan of sitcoms, so I tried to watch the show. But the show us such a disappointment. This show might be one of the worst comedy sitcom ever...	0
OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!	0
This is what Disney Channel shows to kids who are dumber than posts. It suits them well. It's not funny, the acting is the worst I've seen in many years, there are more stereotypes than there are actors, and everything about this show makes you groan and roll your eyes. Wanna know why? Not only is this show a waste of airtime, the lead "actress" Selena Gomez looks like a pig. Jake T. Austin's character needs some Ritalin. David Henrie's character needs to visit a strip club and get wasted. Also, the writer of the show is inconsistent. In one episode, the security guard is called "sir" by one character and referred to as a woman by all else. <br /><br />Hello? It's called proofreading and editing. Do it sometime, Disney. <br /><br />Has anyone seen the promo for the new "four part bloodsucking saga"? Disney wanted their own version of the Twilight vs. Harry Potter thing. Except a million times lamer. The Wizards of Waverly Place Movie?? Think about it for a minute. Family goes away on vacation and 16 year old daughter wants independence from parents. SAME PLOT from The Proud Family Movie etc...<br /><br />What's worse is all the Emmies and ALMA'S it got. And most of the audience are some-what age's 4-13 (And no life teenagers). how many more years? before selena gomez is showing her tits?<br /><br />and Disney shows are all crap..hack writers..hack shows..destroying the minds and wallets of today's youth..	0
The fact that the movie is based on a true story contributes to a better and, of course, more realistic experience and keeps the viewer focused on the basic theme of the movie. The story is filled with unexpected twists which keeps the viewer at all times from figuring the ending out. In one moment you think that something happens to Coach Jones or Radio. Well it does, but certainly not what you'd expect.<br /><br />The film becomes at no point boring or too sentimental and the acting performances by Ed Harris & Cuba Gooding Jr. are some of their best in my opinion. The ending puts a long lasting smile on your face and makes you wonder if what you are doing is right. Well I guess that was what Michael Tollin & Mike Rich were trying to do. First-class movie.<br /><br />Esbjørn Nordby Birch. Denmark.	1
Spoilers !!! To understand what really happened first you have to be a warrior, to stay alive in real war, to think off-line,analytically,critically and not linear. Otherwise you will come to false conclusions that Maj.Gray was dumb or unstable person. Truth is something completely different. He was firm hardened veteran and only way he could be killed by Capt. O'Malley is that he wants her to kill him. It was his way out. He choose it. He was not man who will retire. If you've never been on a first line you can't understand it. He intentionally prepare his own suicide. First he seduced Mary Jane, than intentionally acted as a dumb, than stageed argue - shutting incident before witnesses (to protect her later after she done what he wants her to do if it comes to trial), than gave her son a bullets (to assure he could load her gun later), came that night, loaded her gun, woke her up, put her gun in her hands, acted as he was attacking her, after shot first time he raised knife and cried "One kill" so she shot him again and before died he put knife off like he was trying to took him back again after first shot. He also gave her a message with his last cry. "After first kill everything will change inside your mind and destroy your life, this is the the only way for me to die as a man, yet to be killed by somebody I love is my choice and my only prerogative, war and army is not what you thought so far, grow up finally and save your life till you can". She left military life at the end. She did understand him. And he did not die in vain. The man who helped him to prepare all that and after to carry out the trial and the outcome of that trial was Col. Sam Doran with help of Lt. Tim Macy. Macy didn't know what is really going on and what will be the outcome but did what he was expected to do. He took photos of Mary Jane and Maj.Gray by order of Col. Sam Doran who gave that order because Maj.Gray asked him to do that. After she refused to leave army (what Col.Doran asked her to do) Col. Doran convinced prosecutor to charge her with a premeditated murder (he knew she cant be found quilty) instead of manslaughter (there was some possibility to be found quilty) with taken photos. Col.Doran also suppress argue-shutting incident to escalate to prevent prosecutor to have any doubt about premeditated murder charge but let it be revealed during the trial what greatly influenced the jury. I have no doubt about outcome of that trial. Why Col. Doran did that way? Because he will do anything Maj.Gray ask him to do. Why? Because he saved his life on a battlefield. Why Mary Jane choose to go to trial? Because she was a person who have integrity, a principles. And that is why Maj.Gray choose her. It has to be somebody deserving, somebody honourable. Keeping his secret about what really happened that night she also prove her honour.<br /><br />Miroslav	1
THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits.	0
Natalie Wood portrays Courtney Patterson, a polio disabled songwriter who attempts to avoid being victimized as a result of involvement in her first love affair, with her partner being attorney Marcus Simon, played tepidly by Wood's real-life husband, Robert Wagner. The film is cut heavily, but the majority of the remaining scenes shows a very weak hand from the director who permits Wagner to consistently somnambulate, laying waste to a solid and nuanced performance from Wood, who also proffers a fine soprano. The script is somewhat trite but the persistent nature of Wagner's dramatic shortcoming is unfortunately in place throughout, as he is given a free hand to impose his desultory stare at Wood, which must be discouraging to an actress. The progression of their relationship is erratically presented and this, coupled with choppy editing, leads the viewer to be less than assured as to what is transpiring, motivation being almost completely ignored in the writing. Although largely undistinguished, the cinematography shines during one brief scene when Wood is placed in a patio and, following the sound of a closing door, remains at the center while the camera's eye steadily pulls away demonstrating her helplessness and frailty. More controlled direction would have allowed the performers, even the limp Wagner, to scale their acting along the lines of an engaging relationship; as it was released, there is, for the most part, an immense lack of commitment.	0
Describing this film is a difficult task. On the one hand, it's an over-the-top vampire spookfest, complete with cobwebs, eerie music, a hypnotic medallion, and of course a coffin with a creaky lid.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is one of the silliest scripts this side of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Produced by the same people who gave us "The Bloody Vampire," "Invasion of the Vampires," and this film's predecessor, the modestly-titled "The Vampire," the movie sticks close to the lack of logic that characterizes the other films.<br /><br />As I mentioned, this film is a sequel to "The Vampire," which I have not seen. But no matter...it's real easy to imagine what happened. Dr. Enrique, played by Abel "The Brainiac" Salazar, is befuddled when the well-intentioned but misguided Dr. Marion brings back the staked body of his vampiric enemy, Count Karol de Lavud (I suppose there is a rule somewhere that all vampires must be Counts of some sort). Dr. Marion complains that all important doctors throughout history have had to resort to some sort of grave robbing in order to advance their medical studies, and he hopes to use the vampire's corpse to study such phenomena as the vampire's lack of a normal reflection (at which point he holds a mirror up to the vampire and instead of no reflection, we see the vampire's skeleton. ???).<br /><br />Enrique is not pleased, and seems determined to pass off the events of the first film as mere fantasy and superstition. "This man was no vampire...I'll admit that he liked to drink a little blood, but that's all!" he states. Also confusing matters is the fragile Martha, a part-time nurse and part-time showgirl (!) who happens to be Enrique's object of affection. Martha narrowly escaped de Lavud's clutches in the first film, and apparently Enrique has spent a great deal of time "healing her mind" and getting her to think that everything that she experienced was not real.<br /><br />OK, so if you were the scriptwriter for this film, you would need a way to get someone dumb enough to pull the stake out of the vampire, right? Well, how about the greedy con man who helped Marion steal the coffin? After getting a glimpse de Lavud's body, he sets his sights on the expensive-looking brooch that the Count is wearing, and he conveniently returns to steal it when the doctors aren't looking. But darn it...he can't remove the brooch because of the stake, so...you guessed it. De Lavud is on the loose again, this time with the shady con as his human henchman.<br /><br />OK, so of course the vampire is after Martha again, and meanwhile the doctors are really confused about what they believe. At first they are determined to prove that there is no such thing as a real vampire, then by the end of the film they are trying to get the police to put an all-points bulletin out for "a man who is dead but still alive!".<br /><br />You can probably imagine the rest of the plot from here, but the filmmakers do throw in a few pleasing twists. One of the sets for the movie is a spooky wax museum (is there any other kind in these types of films?), complete with a fully-equipped torture chamber...with REAL torture and execution equipment. The movie has a very keen sense of style, and not just in the campy cobwebs. One effectively creepy sequence has de Lavud chasing a victim down a seemingly endless series of streets and alleyways, following their progress alongside vague buildings with no doors while lighting the scene like a German expressionist nightmare ("The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" seems to be an influence).<br /><br />But the rest of the film is juvenile, particularly in the film's climax. The special effects are quite crude, even for the year that this was made, and the climactic fight with de Lavud in bat form is laughable enough...but the director feels the need to ask us to believe that Martha would faint and collapse directly over top of a guillotine, positioned so that her head was in the perfect location to be chopped off by the blade, which is in danger of falling because the restraining rope has suddenly begun to fray RIGHT AT THAT VERY MINUTE! What an unfortunate coincidence! To make matters worse, he cuts away from the fraying rope to scenes of Enrique trying to dodge the swooping rubber bat, basically standing still and waving his arms around. It's definitely an Ed Wood moment if ever there was one, especially when Martha seems to revive on her own and rises groggily to her feet just as the blade slams down. Whew! What a relief! In terms of kookiness, "The Vampire's Coffin" does not have the lunacy factor of "The Bloody Vampire" or "Invasion of the Vampires", but fans of these types of old horror films will appreciate the atmospheric photography, and the fact that the director manages to wring some real chills from this material has to "Count" for something (haw haw).	0
Imagine yourself trapped inside a museum of the dark middle Ages and a resurrected vampire and his maniacal sidekick are chasing you. Where is the absolute last place you want to hide? I'd say inside the uncanny Virgin of Nuremberg torture device, because there's a good risk you'll get brutally spiked to death. And yet, the elderly lady in this film stupidly runs into her spiked coffin. "The Vampire's Coffin" is a rather disappointing sequel, as director Fernando Méndez doesn't re-create the Gothic atmosphere of the 1957-original but puts the emphasis on comical situations and dialogs. No more ominous castles with eerie cobwebs and dark vaults, but confused doctors and clumsy assistants that provoke laughs instead of frights. The story opens inside Count de Lavud's final resting place, where an eminent doctor and a hired assistant steal the coffin in order to examine the corpse at a private clinic. Naturally the wooden stake gets removed from his heart, and the vampire count comes to live again, immediately enslaving the petty thief to do his dirty work. The vampire has his eye on a beautiful female patient at the clinic, and it's up to Dr. Enrique Saldívar to rescue her soul and to destroy the bloodsucker. "The Vampire's Coffin" uses a limited amount of locations and there's very little action. The whole film would actually be pretty boring if it weren't for a handful of memorable sequences and decent acting performances. The photography is amazing, though, with the sublime use of shadows and darkness. This is most notably during the scene in which Count de Lavud stalks a young woman through the deserted streets of little town at night. It's the only truly worthwhile scene of the whole film, the rest is fairly mediocre and déjà-vu.	0
Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).	0
Gorgeous Annie Belle in her prime stars in this adventure/sex movie. She wears her hair in a buzz cut that is bleached platinum. She and her boyfriend are visiting some tropical Asian paradise. They have decided to keep an "open" sexual relationship, which is played out on their journey to find a secret society/tribe where the people live one year and then are reborn in some kind of ceremony. The scenery is gorgeous, deep vast green gorges and jungles are explored. The imagery is very similar to that of the movie "Black Emanuelle". It is rich and colorful. Recommended!	1
This movie reminded me of the live dramas of the 1950s- not like the recent "Failsafe", which seemed more of a stunt than anything else, but a TRUE moral drama that is both engaging and thought-provoking. Anne Heche is more than credible as the army officer having an affair with her superior, played by Sam Shepard, and Eric Stoltz is wonderful as her lawyer defending her against the military establishment. I found myself waiting for THEIR affair to begin, if only because they look so good together. This movie is apparently based on a true story, and it's a relief to be asked to think about real issues for a change. <br /><br />Directed by Christopher Menaul, who also did The Passion of Ayn Rand (with Stolz) and the Prime Suspect series, this is a movie with panache and style and is absolutely worth seeing.	1
Oh f*cking hell, where should I start... First of all; this show is just another stupid American non-funny so called comedy which has pathetic acting and very very poor humor. The American way of laughing-track business makes the whole thing even worse. How come I can hear laughter, yet there's nothing funny happening? Pretty stupid, eh? This show is only for those American people who haven't ever heard that there are far more funnier, better and wittier comedies - not only in Great Brittain, but also in America (The Simpsons for example). I simply can't understand what is so good about "Reba" that it has lasted for long a while in television. It has nothing new to offer, it underestimates the (possible) viewers in so many ways and it simply isn't funny at all. I could have lived with the fact that there are so bad shows as "Reba", but why the hell they had to run it here in Finland. If I see few seconds of this horrible show the rest of the day is ruined for me. Take my word and believe me - this show sucks ass even more than these kind of American "comedies" usually does. This is simply horrible. Do yourself a favor; don't ever watch this peace of sh*t. <br /><br />Well I leave the commenting for those who now this language better. Thanks for your (possible) interest.	0
Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home, attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed. The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male advances in a very butch style.<br /><br />There is considerable psychological freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against her, even her attorney at times. <br /><br />The verdict? Well, after all, this is rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of "pacifist" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, "war is hell", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in his poem "Tommy Atkins":<br /><br />"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide."	1
Excellent cast, story line, performances. Totally believable. I realize the close knit group that exemplifies the Marine Corps. But this movie brought fear to my heart. The marines let principles be damned. It seems that this film was based on real life incidents. It shows how difficult it is to go up against the establishment. Anne Heche was utterly convincing. Sam Shepard's portrayal of a gung ho Marine was sobering. And Eric Stoltz as her attorney was so deft balancing his loyalty to the Corp but also his loyalty to his client, while high above on his tightrope. He knew what his true course of action had to be. But he was pulled apart by his immersion in the Marine tradition, loyalty to the Corps above all else. I sat riveted to the TV screen. All in all I give this one a resounding 9 out of 10.	1
My parents may enjoy this show, but I fail to find the humor in it. What is so funny about a dentist husband impregnating his hygienist assistant and the oldest daughter getting impregnated by the captain of the high school football team? Absolutely nothing! It's a shock to me sometimes what people think constitutes humor nowadays. Blame that on shows like "The Dating Game" and "The Newlywed Game" bringing the issue of sex to the forefront in the mid-1960s. Sure, the series has its touching moments, still that's no excuse for the content that otherwise went into this series. This is nothing like the family-oriented days of "I Love Lucy" some five decades before. <br /><br />An answer I would have to why this series plays on the Lifetime cable channel is because that channel's brass think women can relate to Reba's character! I absolutely dislike the character of Reba Hart's daughter, Kyra. She is best described as a ditsy and bitter teenager! Funny, I wonder if the actress who played Kyra; Scarlett Pomers, is like that in real life away from acting. Who plays the blockhead ex-husband dentist, Christopher Rich, is not much better. Barbara Jean, played by Melissa Peterman, is ditsy in herself! The characters of Van and Cheyenne are also very annoying.<br /><br />Something else that baffles me is why the dingbat-of-a-series creator, Allison M. Gibson, decided to set the series in where I live 25 miles away from; Houston, Texas! Reba McEntire isn't even from this state, she's an Oklahoman! Why is it during one season or more they decided to make the incidental music sound like a pig snorting? What I mean by that is where we hear this baritone saxophone being played with drums accompanying it, but the melodies are basically tuneless!	0
Reba is a very dumb show. You can predict pretty much anything that's about to happen. Barbra Jean is just too stupid. It's like she's not even a character. A show like this should at least have SOMEONE who resembles a real-life person. I guess Barbra Jean represents a retarded person. Keira or whatever her name is, Reba, Brock, they're all stupid! Keira is like the smartest person on the show, and she's still stupid. EVERYONE IS STUPID! That's my opinion on Reba. Since I have said all I can say about this show, I'll just take up the next few lines of text by saying what I am currently saying right now and do it until there's 10 lines. There. Reba gets 2/10.	0
The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10.	1
Reba is , without a doubt , one of the worst "comedy" series ever. I wonder how come there are people writing good comments on "Reba" ... You watch "Friends" , "Married Wtih Children" , "Fraizer" if you laugh at that , you can never laugh at the stupid jokes and the ridiculous accent of the singer who is trying to make her way in comedy and obviously having no chance whatsoever. The actors/actresses beside Reba are OK so I feel bad for them stucking in a so-called comedy show with the least funnies person in the world (Reba).To sum up , I suggest this TV Show to see how low comedy can get and appreciate the ones that can make you laugh	0
Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing "Que Sera, Sera" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10.	1
This is another enjoyable and entertaining Hitchcock film. James Stewart and Doris Day are incredible in this movie. Bernard Herrmann appears as himself near the climax.<br /><br />The scenery and locations are great, except the one scene early on where the background was obviously fake, which doesn't make sense to me since scenes before and after were in the same setting and they were real location shots. I've heard that Hitchcock did this on purpose sometimes.<br /><br />The reviews for this movie seem to be mixed. I think this is a better than average Hitchcock movie. Very entertaining and it has a great light comical scene at the end.<br /><br />I rated this movie 8 out of 10.<br /><br />	1
Naked Deanna Troi! <br /><br />Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!<br /><br />Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.<br /><br />Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.<br /><br />All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.<br /><br />As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.<br /><br />If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.	0
Reba sucks. It sucks hard. It's about this awful country singer attempting comedy. They might as well call this show "Generic", because that's what it is. It's dumb and generic. Reba, you're not funny, and I'm glad your retarded show was cancelled because you suck, and so does Brock, Barbra Jean, the red-headed teenager, that jockey guy, and the 12 year old who got knocked up. You all suck, and none of you are funny. Oh, and I heard a rumor that Reba is actually a gay devil-worshipper who idolizes Hitler and tortures animals. And she puts subliminal messages on her show and in her "music" in hopes to make children kill their parents and kill themselves! But it was just a rumor. Anyway, this is the worst show ever, Reba is gay, I do not like her, I think The Office is better than this show, and this show sucks.	0
this really is an "okay" series.. everyone in it is pretty good. but i just can't take Reba. she's trying to be funny but she just isn't and then she got a stupid accent!! if they took her out of the show i would love to see it every day..<br /><br />i have been watching the show in 10 min now and as i said before, Reba IS destroying the show. however the 20 year old guy (dont know his name) but he's soooo funny, and he's really saving it all..<br /><br />so here's the recipe to get a great show. kick Reba of it and then put the 20 year old guy into the lead role.<br /><br />i really hope someone out there agrees with me and thinks (like me) that they should kick Reba of the show and put someone else in the lead role	0
Some people say the pace of this film is a little slow, but how is this different from any other Hitchcock movie? They all move very deliberately and, as a point, have spurts of suspense and brilliant montages injected through it. This movie gives us just the right amount of comic relief which make the suspense scenes seem all the more suspenseful. The Albert Hall scene is one of the best examples of Pure Cinema that exists in Hitchcock's collection (the best probably being almost all of "Rear Window"). Pure Cinema for Hitchcock meant a series of usually small pieces of film fit together without dialogue, in order to tell the story visually. This is, of course the basic definition of the Albert Hall sequence, as well as the shorter staircase sequence at the end of the picture. <br /><br />Not many slip-ups by Hitchcock here, and the acting is superb especially by Doris Day in a rather surprising serious role.	1
I pretty much liked every character on this show from the start except Reba herself. She comes off as an holier than thou type and quite frankly a big Bully. And that stinks because she is in every scene and every episode. In the later seasons Van becomes unlikeable too,like a spoof of his former self. and Kyra walks around sneering and being miserable.The first 3 to 4 seasons are pretty good if you overlook Reba. Towards the end its pretty bleak.. In basically every episode Barbara jean Is walking around being dumb,Reba is being mean to her,but poor Ole Barbara jean desperately wants Reba to like her which results in Barabara jean telling Reba how awesome she is in every episode. I think it is pretty clear to see Reba has self esteem issues and wants to be seen as this all forgiving saint. Its really a shame too because other than her the show had such potential.	0
Does anyone else think that "Reba" is basically a ripoff of "Roseanne"? Just look at the characters from the two families, Connors (Roseanne) and Harts (Reba) ; the blonde bombshell elder daughter (Becky Connor and Cheyenne Hart) who's married to a moron (Mark Healy and Van Montgomery), the sarcastic brunette younger daughter (Darlene Connor and Kyra Hart), the little brother (DJ Connor and Jake Hart), and the quirky relative (Jackie Connor and Barbara-Jean Booker Hart). <br /><br />And then, of course, there is the biggest similarity, Reba Hart and Roseanne Connor. "Reba" tried to copy the sarcastic and tough-love style mom without giving her the same lovable qualities as Roseanne had. Or, perhaps, they made her *too* lovable, for Reba Hart seems to waver between being mean and scary (hence Van's line to his wife Cheyenne "I'm not afraid of you, I'm afraid of your mother!") and being sweet and caring with little transition in between. Roseanne at least managed to get it across that she was being cruel to be kind, since she was always mean and sarcastic and, whenever she tried to open up, it was hard for her. As inconsistent as Reba's character is, it's hard for her to be believable. <br /><br />But even if the characters weren't completely ripped off of "Roseanne", nothing could've saved the show from being sub-par in the plot area. The writers try to give the show substance but they really can't lay off the corny jokes long enough to give any impact. And you'd better believe the jokes are corny; it's as if they were written by a twelve-year-old who thinks that any joke is hilarious. While occasionally they come out with something that's funny (I don't pretend that I didn't laugh at a few episodes) these gems are too few and far between to make "Reba" witty. <br /><br />Overall, "Reba" is a very mediocre show with obvious ripoffs of "Roseanne", sub-par plots and sub-sub-par humor, and (let's face it) terrible acting. The show might be a bit better, actually, if they replaced all the actors, especially Reba herself, who is more community- theater quality than prime-time sitcom quality. <br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 just to be fair to the good jokes that make it in.	0
Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another wonderful film from the great master's stable.	1
1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:<br /><br />1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.<br /><br />2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.<br /><br />3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening. <br /><br />4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything. <br /><br />I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch!	1
This show is made for persons with IQ lower than 80. The jokes in the show are so lame. If you are on a deserted island and you do not have anything to do you will be better than to watch this garbage.... You will hate their accent their behavior and all the stupid jokes and pranks they try to perform...It really pisses me of that viewers gave Reba 6.7 on their voting...Sure i knew there are some people with IQ lower than 80 but what i did not know that there are so many of them! So people if you got to read this I hope that you will never ever download or buy this peace of garbage... I know it is not the place for his but i wish to recommend one much better mini-series 'Scrubs'	0
While it would be easy and accurate to go into why 'Reba' is at its heart indicative of many 'family-oriented sitcoms' in the way it rips off from other better sitcoms, the real truth is that the show is repetitive, full of stereotypes from funnier and more groundbreaking shows, and the lead star is completely out of her element. While I'm sure Ms. McIntire can sing and has a fan base that supports that, being in a sitcom shooting out zingers and calling her the next Lucille Ball is far, far removed from reality.<br /><br />Reba herself has no presence which is needed here to establish the fact that she is cast as the put-upon woman of which her entire family is centered. Yet after watching a few episodes there is no real connection to the character. I could care less about her adventures because her whole character seems to be MIA. Reba McIntire has no screen presence, and to make a show around her seems very short-sighted and indicative of most 'family-oriented' programming: to push a sitcom full of men-stupid/women-do-everything stereotypes that appeal to nobody but those who can't afford cable.<br /><br />The show is a waste of time. The only good thing is that it at least has better production values than your standard PAX ripoff....just.	0
I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and certainly won't get a diploma in "sex and crime".<br /><br />What it derives its tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails. Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM, this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America, the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot.<br /><br />And this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be "good businessmen", disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and assassinating politicians in the opera!! <br /><br />What makes the movie great, however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat "oriental" flair the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in this movie.<br /><br />Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a loud orchastra tutti/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy...<br /><br />All in all: A classic!!	1
I finally saw LAURE and I have to say that I equally enjoyed it and was dismayed by it. What's great about it is the atmosphere, the music, the location, the cinematography and the beautiful cast. The story is non-existent for sure but with these movies it doesn't really matter. The pace in languid and the settings are exotic. The film has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it also has a few things going against it. The first thing is that the gorgeous Annie Belle and the handsome Al Cliver have no chemistry whatsoever. Because the two are playing a couple and are on screen for almost the entire length of the film the lack of chemistry between the two is a definite liability. According to IMDb, Al and Annie were a real couple when they filmed this movie. They sure kept their attraction to each other from showing on screen.<br /><br />The other problem with LAURE is that some sex scenes are just ineffective or even ridiculous. There's one sex scene that stands out as one of the silliest I've ever seen in any soft porn flick: our young blonde couple are picked-up by a helicopter pilot who happens to be a cross-dresser! The pilot flies over the city to pick up his girlfriend (!) and they have an orgy of sorts in the helicopter, in mid-air. And Al Cliver is filming all of this with his 16mm camera! I kid you not. Ridiculous. We later see that 16mm footage being edited on a moviola. While the footage rolls, Al and Annie start making out. This scene is actually good but the footage on the screen behind them was at times too much. Watching the footage of the cross-dresser getting it on with his bimbo while piloting the helicopter almost had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud. Is this supposed to be erotic or believable in any way? The last thing I want to see is a woman pleasuring a man in drag, certainly when the man in drag makes for such an ugly woman, while piloting a helicopter, no less. Al and Annie getting it on was cool as was the music during the entire scene. I just wish the footage on the editing screen wasn't so silly.<br /><br />Speaking of drag, another dull plot point in LAURE which really drags the movie to a crawl are all those moments with the great Orso Maria Guerrini and his two wives. A married threesome is an interesting idea but it hardly registers here as hot or even interesting. The two women are sorta dull and we rarely see the three having sex. In fact, Orso keeps his clothes on for almost the entire film, even when he's with Annie Belle. This is another minor complaint about LAURE: there's nudity but it's not as much as other films of the same era. It just needed more skin to punch it up.<br /><br />Except for those minor complaints and the drag queen moments, LAURE is actually very watchable. I love these kind of softcore films from the 1970s when the attention was set on mood and atmosphere, not the crude stuff we see today.<br /><br />p.s.: make sure to watch Emanuelle in Egypt, which stars Annie & Al but also another famous screen couple, Laura Gemser and Gabriele Tinti. The music in that movie is also great.	1
Less a thriller than an colorful adventure with suspenseful elements, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH should not be really be compared with such Hitchcock masterpieces as VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, or PSYCHO; it is instead more akin to such enjoyable romps as TO CATCH A THIEF and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Shot largely on location in Morocco and London, the film tells the story of a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) whose holiday is interrupted when they innocently run afoul of an assassination plot--and when their young son is kidnapped in order to insure their silence.<br /><br />James Stewart and Doris Day are quite effective in their roles of the All-American couple, and the characters are given an unusual twist: Stewart, a midwestern doctor, is outgoing but has a touch of "the ugly American abroad" about his personality; Day, who plays a popular stage and recording star who retired upon her marriage, has a suspicious nature. These qualities of personality and background play extremely well into the story.<br /><br />THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH contains a number of famous scenes; both the scene in which Stewart drugs Day before telling her of the kidnapping and the very complex Albert Hall sequence, involving what seems hundreds of cuts, are very powerful. Less often noticed, although to my mind equally if not more satisfactory, are the more subtle scenes in which Hitchcock combines an edge of suspense along with perverse humor, as when Stewart attempts some detecting at a taxidermist shop and Day belts out "Que Sera, Sera" (written for this film) in a most unsuitable way at an embassy cocktail party.<br /><br />Although THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH lacks the depth and impact of Hitchcock's greater work, it remains an enjoyable film and one that compares very well with his work as a whole. It's Hitchcock-light, but recommended.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer	1
In my opinion of this movie the entire video portion of this movie was absolute trash!!!! However the soundtrack that was used contained the music of a great heavy metal rock band, I recognized the music as being a band called Firstryke and the album was "Just a Nightmare" and it was very well written!! and I am curious to see what the rest of you movie buffs out there think of it, if can remember back that far I would appreciate the feed back, I collect old movie, and obscure movie sound tracks. It is a very time consuming hobby but is very rewarding. I have seen this bands music being sold in Germany on the net for around fifty dollars per album. Not to bad Hugh?	0
Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than "Woodchipper Massacre," just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than "Nail Gun Massacre," just when I thought "Don't Go In The Woods" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes "THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:<br /><br />A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as "Slumber Party Massacre" and Halloween") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.<br /><br />I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!!	0
One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934.	1
I would most definitely have to say that this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. It's not just the actors that are bad, but also the fact that the camera person taped the wall and the clocks for about 5 minutes at a time. Anyone that likes this must be crazy! THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME	0
This Film is the One which you fall in love with. Alfred Hitchcock shall always remain over the top of any directors of his time. The most influential aspects about his films are sheer Simplicity & Gripping Drama. The another best thing about Hitchcock's films is a Definite & Gripping End.<br /><br />Any thing said about "The Man who knew too much" is less. The Cinematography, Acting, Dialogs & Camera Works are magnificent in this Movie. The Song "Que Sera Sera" at the end shall remain in our memories for life time. The film is so enjoyable from start to end that we never know when it ends. Rarely would Hitchcock include humor in his films, this film has comic scenes which fits in to the movie. <br /><br />This film is absolutely brilliant & as good as Vertigo.	1
Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934 English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version, besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent' American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the "Albert Hall' sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!). The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is better.	1
I thought Godzilla 2000 was the worst movie ever until I saw this monstrosity. My friends and I went to our local blockbuster and spent about an hour and a half looking for a movie. We could not find one since we have seen almost every movie created. We decided to look in the low budget horror section. We looked for the most attractive cover featuring scantily clad women. We finally decided on Last Slumber Party, THE. Whoops, we made a mistake. It seems as though this movie was filmed with the cheapest camera that could be found in K-Mart. The actors were picked up at a Salvation Army, and as for Steven Tyler. We will just leave that to the imagination. The plot of this movie was ridiculous. SPOILER ALERT While watching the movie there is absolutely no closure at all. Then come to find out all the events were just a dream. This movie should also have been about 30 minutes. If all the camera zooms on still shots, and scans of walls were taken out, it would have been much shorter. All I can say is I'm glad there wasnt a sequel.	0
Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Who Knew Too Much," is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over "Vertigo" and "Rear Window."<br /><br />Like "North By Northwest," it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.<br /><br />While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain. <br /><br />Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over.	1
This isn't among my favorite Hitchcock films, though I must admit it's still pretty good. Among the things I really liked were the presence of Jimmy Stewart (he always improves even the most mediocre material) and the incredibly scary looking assassin (who looks like a skeleton with just a thin layer of skin stretched over him). Although it cost the studio a lot of money, I didn't particularly care for Doris Day in the film--she seemed to weep a lot and belts out "Que Sera" like a fullback. Yes, I know that she was supposed to sing in that manner, but this forever made me hate this song. Sorry.<br /><br />The other complaint, though minor, I had about the movie was that it was a little "too polished" and "Hollywood-esque". The original version (also done by Hitchcock) just seemed a lot grittier and seedier--and this added to the scary ambiance.	1
If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped hours later.<br /><br />Before you can say, "Fasten your seat belts," Dr. McKenna finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However, other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to dispose of him.<br /><br />Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and well.<br /><br />If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch.<br /><br />My Score: 8/10.	1
The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good "blow 'em away" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.	0
So one day I was in the video store looking for a movie. I came across this and rented it because it was a film I hadn't seen or even heard of.<br /><br />Now I like slasher movies in general, but this is just abysmal, not even good for laughs. Besides being ultra ultra cheap and containing all slasher film cliches and terrible acting it has the most incompetent and inept direction I have ever come across. Now sometimes the aforementioned traits can be present in a film and some enjoyment can still be had, but not here. Painful example of home-made horror.	0
James Stewart plays Dr. Ben McKenna, who, with his wife and son, are tourists in an Arabian city. They get caught up in the middle of a murder scene. The victim whispers something in Dr. McKenna's ear, and he is told to do something.<br /><br />Later, his son is kidnapped. The kidnappers turn out to be a man and woman he knew, but the woman is a bit softer than the man.<br /><br />The song, "Que, Sera, Sera" (Whatever we'll be, we'll be," is one of the best songs ever sung in any movie.<br /><br />Doris Day play's Stewart's wife, and she sings the song mentioned above. Her performance is Oscar worthy. I'm surprised she wasn't even nominated.<br /><br />My Score: 8/10.	1
I love cheesy horror movies, I think dead alive and bad taste are great and I think slumber party massacre II (not even related to this movie) are hilarious. But this movie absolutely stank, I didn't laugh, I didn't even enjoy it.. you can see all kinds of mistakes that aren't even campy. The best take of the scene where the woman leans out the window is the one where she smacks her head on the sill? Give me a break.<br /><br />Don't rent this thinking it's related to the slumber party massacre series. It's awful and I don't even have a clue how it got any distribution. Rent it with a fake name and burn it, do everyone else the favor.	0
I have been getting into the Hitchcock series very much lately. I find myself always renting one of his movies when I'm at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Like I said before, Hollywood is loosing it's touch incredibly, I needed a reminder that there are terrific films out there. Not to mention, I want to be a film appreciator, not a movie buff. Is there any better way to do that than with Alfred Hitchcock's movies? <br /><br />The Man who knew too Much is another great and exciting thriller starring Alfred's favorite leading man James Stuart and the woman who steals the show Dorris Day. They play husband and wife who go on vacation with their son, but when a spy tells James some information that could arrest another spy, his son is kidnapped and held for ransom. James seems to just doubt Dorris and her ability for ideas on how to get their son back, but she makes a great comeback and just about ends up being the hero of the flick.<br /><br />The acting again, I would say that Dorris was the one who outshined the whole cast. James did a great job keeping up, together these two made you sit down and never budge throughout the film. I loved the little bit of comedy at the end that Alfred added. You'll see what I mean. I would always highly recommend this film, despite not being the best Hitchcock film, it's still a treasure.<br /><br />9/10	1
I hate to admit it, but I didn't find it to be one of Hitchcock's best but nonetheless a riveting, climatic thriller. In a remake of Hitchock's 1934 movie of the same title, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) – the man who knows too much - and his wife Jo McKenna (Doris Day) are holidaying in Morocco with their son Hank (Christopher Oslen) when there is a case of mistaken identity and caught up in the web of an assassination plot. The conspirators go to extreme lengths to prevent them from interfering with their plot: kidnapping their beloved Hank.<br /><br />I found it surprising that Doris Day, who I usually associate with Rock Hudson comedies, was cast in a Hitchcock film. As I was watching it, I soon realized that this was more of a family film compared to Hitchcock's other works (example: Psycho) and she had singing ability needed to pull off "Que Sera Sera", which she did beautifully. She was well cast as herself and James Stewart had chemistry, which helped make the couple believable.<br /><br />In comparison to the great director's other works I believe this isn't as good, but it is still a exceedingly entertaining family thriller/mystery. There is also the added bonus of Que Sera Sera, which turned out to be a smash hit for Doris Day. Well directed, well acted. A fine film.	1
I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.	1
Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.<br /><br />The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.<br /><br />Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.<br /><br />There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed, "did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand," muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.<br /><br />The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.<br /><br />The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.<br /><br />This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith.	1
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" falls into that Hitchcock middle ground that characterized many of his films during the 1950s: not a masterpiece of suspense by any means, but an awful lot of fun nonetheless.<br /><br />James Stewart and Doris Day play a vacationing couple who get caught up in a plot heavy on foreign intrigue. The famous climactic scene takes place at a classical music concert, where someone is going to be assassinated during a particular cymbal clash in the score. The impish Hitchcock of course lets us know what that point is, so that the race to stop the assassin becomes a nail biting race against the cymbalist.<br /><br />So much of this movie reminded me of the 1978 Chevy Chase/Goldie Hawn comedy "Foul Play" that I have to believe that film was inspired by this. Neither film is a big deal, but both are easy to enjoy.<br /><br />Grade: B+	1
I'm not even going to comment on what piece of trash this film is since that has already been established. However, watching this with my friends we all laughed out loud when the lead girl made a Shelley Hack reference while on the phone. We sat there trying to figure out why the writer would throw her into the mix. We can only assume he had a Charlie's Angels fixation at one time. Based on that reference, we assumed this film must have been made around her Charlie's Angels run in 1979 or 1980, but from what I've read here it was made around 1987. You sure couldn't tell that from the poor production values. It seems as though it was made by a college student for a film class. And while by no means would I expect a low-budget trash fest like this to be politically correct, the rednecks in this film sure did like to direct derogatory gay remarks to each other. Even so I'd still only rank this as the 2nd worst horror film ever made, second only to "Nail Gun Massacre."	0
Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way.	1
I got this on a double feature DVD called "Scream Theater" and it's no doubt one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen. And I've seen some really bad ones. School's out, and of three girls (who if they're teenagers I'd eat my hat) are talking about "non-stop party", so of course they all go to the house of the girl whose parents are the most strict for a slumber party. Meanwhile, a psychotic has escaped the local bug-house where one girl's father works & is on the loose with sharp objects and wearing green scrubs, and sporting wide-open eyes...I guess that's to show he's bonkers. Of course since he has a bone to pick with that particular doctor off he goes to his house, the location of which is apparently common knowledge. In the meantime, some dumb-jock types are slamming down beers and out to scare the girls, and of course the loony shows up too and starts cutting throats. And that's about it, as the heavy metal music chugs along in the background. Or, maybe that's not it, but really, that's all you need to know. Unless you spend your time perpetually stoned or drunk, you'll find little of interest here, and even if you are wasted most of the time, you'll still probably find your intelligence insulted. 1 out of 10.	0
Hitchcock's remake of his 1934 film concerns about the known story of McKenna marriage(James Stewart, Doris Day, in the first version Leslie Banks, Edna Best) along with their 11-years-old son travelling through Morocco during vacations. In a bus they know a sympathetic French person(Daniel Gelin, in the old version Pierre Fresnay). While they are in Marrakech they also know a couple(Bernard Miles and Brenda De Banzie) and happen suddenly on the scene of a killing, the dying whispers a political message.Then the child is abducted to ensure their silence and McKenna gets help to Morocco's Inspector Buchanan(Ralph Truman).<br /><br />This is a superb movie about a family who stumbles on to an obscure international conspiracy and then they're forced into action is excellently played by James Stewart and Doris Day. This exciting film displays suspense, intrigue, tension, and interesting drama well written by John Michael Hayes and Charles Bennett . Packs an ordinary theme of the suspense magician: innocent people become caught up in a cobweb intrigue and uncanny, intelligent villains. Colorful and glimmer cinematography shot in Morocco and London studios by cameraman Robert Burks, though with excessive transparency for Marrakech scenes. Lavish sets by Henry Bunstead, Hitchcock's usual, and working until his recent death. Of course,the highlights are the happenings of the famous Royal Albert Hall of London assassination where a sneering killer, Reggie Nalder, tries to execute while composer Bernard Herrmann is conducting orchestra. Besides at the climax Doris Day singing ¨Que sera, Que sera¨, meantime her son suffering risks, the song won Oscar for Ray Evans, Jay Livingstone . The story was ferociously reviewed for its double characters but today is considered a classic movie and fairly entertaining. Rating : better than average, Hitchcock's enthusiastic no doubt will enjoy it.	1
my friend and i rented this one a few nights ago. and, i must say, this is the single best movie i have ever seen. i mean, woah! "dude, we better get some brew before this joint closes" and "dude, linda's not wearin' a bra again." what poetry! woah! and it's such a wonderfuly original movie, too. i mean, you don't usually find a slasher film where every single murder is exactly the same. i mean, exactly! now that's originality. and almost all the transitions between scenes are these great close-ups of the psycho in the ER scrubs. how cool! the acting is so wonderful to. the dad was just brilliant. must have studied REAL DADS before filming. and how many movies do you find that just don't make any sense? not many. but this is one of those gems. i mean, how cool is it that one guy waited outside for like six hours to pull a prank, while his friends were both inside? that's really cool. overall i'd say this is the single greatest film of the genre, nay, in the world! *****	0
O boy, was this really bad.<br /><br />I saw this on videotape.<br /><br />In scenes that had soundtrack music, it was hard to hear the dialog. When people were on the telephone, it was hard to hear the person on the other end. It appeared that at least two different kinds of film or video stock were used, because the colors and focus sometimes shifted drastically between edits. And there were a lot of out of focus shots that didn't seem intentional.<br /><br />One indicator of the budget (one of many) was when a news report comes on TV. There is just a "news flash" title card badly superimposed with a video effect onto a TV screen, and a voice-over by a newscaster. They couldn't shoot footage of a newscaster, and then actually show it on the TV?<br /><br />The movie starts off with a killer wearing surgical scrubs and mask, wielding a scalpel. Supposedly he's a paranoid schizophrenic who escapes from the hospital to avoid having a lobotomy performed on him.<br /><br />Students are let out of school for a break, and three young women decide to have a slumber party. Three guys decide to crash the party, and a geek named Science decides to crash it too. The slumber party is pretty boring, and the guys just keep showing up randomly wearing masks, taking the masks off, and then disappearing. The mother and father (the surgeon who was to do the lobotomy) of one of the girls keep showing up too. The killer knocks slices people's throats without anyone really noticing. The apparent lead of the movie more or less sleepwalks through the movie. Perhaps that was bad acting, or maybe it was intentional, since much of the movie is a nightmare, and some of it a nightmare within a nightmare.<br /><br />The ending is really horrible too.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cheesy United Home Video VHS box art, which was revived for the DVD release (a double feature with Terror at Tenkiller). I honestly can't tell if it is a photo, or a painting, or a combination of both. The women pictured on the cover are not in the movie, and the clothing they're wearing is way more revealing than anything the women in the movie wore. The throat slicing on the cover is scarier than the ones in the movie - where people tend to affect a goofy pop-eyed look. For that matter, that's what the killer has most of the time: head cocked, and eyes bugging out, mugging for the camera. Frequently the scalpel was held up close to the camera in focus, while the killer's mask-covered face was in close-up but out of focus in the background.	0
oh well... its funny. should have been a sadistic comedy, a lot of horror movies lack common sense,but i think a retarded caveman would weasel his way around this situation. Don't really expect Hitchcock or anything close to this. this is a good one for friends,but i wouldn't recommend it for anything else.this movie lacks all the substance of a true horror movie,the suspense,the shock,and good characters. the killer failed to be the unstoppable force that i expected him to be,and he seemed to be the average angry "D" student able to outsmart only stupid people. and the really funny thing is the horrible acting and the lack of emotion of the so called "victims"<br /><br />3/10 just expect this one in the daily funnies.	0
There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.<br /><br />Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.<br /><br />The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.<br /><br />The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, "Forever Evil," which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.<br /><br />A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended.	0
This one's a doozy. Dating from 1949, Scene of the Crime often plays more like a Coen Bros. movie set in the 1940's and filmed in black and white, except that the writer's ear for pastiche here isn't quite so well-tuned -- maybe this can be seen instead as the forerunner to Oscar-baiting schlock like Road to Perdition. Frankly, it's a wonder that this film isn't considered a classic by film professors and critics everywhere, considering how much it offers in term of overly articulated mannerist thrills cloaked in false significance ( much like the grandaddy of all such "fake art" films, Citizen Kane, or anything by Murnau. ) <br /><br />MGM is usually a studio that can do no wrong in my eyes, and I think any story, any atmosphere, even "gritty realism," can only benefit from grotesque overaestheticization. You could say I'm a disciple of the Minnelli school. But it takes a certain light touch to write mannered tough-guy dialogue of the Dashiell Hammett stripe, a willingness, perhaps, to let maybe one or two scenes pass without a line like "Careful, Mr. Wiggly, or you'll have thirteen fish to fry and no little wormies to catch them with." I made most of that up -- "Mr. Wiggly," unfortunately, made the cut -- but believe me, the dialogue is just that loonily inflated and riddled with non sequiturs. Even the lead cop's wife played by Arlene Dahl speaks like she has a moon-shaped scar under one eye and the Christian name Rocco. By the time Van Johnson turns in his badge with the line, "I'm sick to death of death and homicide," you'll wonder how the writer's fixation with ornate literary devices -- in this case, zeugma -- could ever have been misconstrued as "street." <br /><br />For those who have outgrown The Naked Gun series, this is the funniest cops-n-robbers film going.	0
Okay, now I know where all those boring cop/homicide TV shows came from. I do believe they can be traced back to this movie. "Scene Of The Crime" feels more like a TV episode, or an episode of a serial. Complete with stock characters and situations - the hotshot cop who clashes with his superiors... the aging cop who doesn't want a desk job, despite failing eyesight... the reckless rookie... the double-crossing dame, etc.<br /><br />I like many of the actors here, and they do a good job, but overall I found this movie dull as I'm not a fan of the genre. I kept tuning out when they were discussing the case ...something about bookies and informers. And oh yeah, there was a stripper, played by the previously wholesome Gloria DeHaven. What I want to know is: Why did she keep calling Van Johnson "Uncle Wiggly"? Wasn't Uncle Wiggly a rabbit? A character from a children's book? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I guess I just don't get tough-guy Film Noir-ish kinda jargon.<br /><br />In fact, much of the dialogue made me mutter "nobody talks like that!" However, I could relate to one scene where the cop's wife (Arlene Dahl), who worries every time he goes to work, realizes that maybe she shouldn't have made her husband the center of her life. Yeah, I know that feeling of loving someone so much, being so dependent on them, that there's a constant fear for their safety. So there are moments of truth in this film, underneath the stylized dialogue and atmosphere which is trying so self-consciously to be gritty and REAL, that it actually seems unreal to me.<br /><br />A little background: this movie was made when Dore Schary took over MGM from Louis B. Mayer, and began to put an end to the wholesome musicals that made MGM so great. Dore Schary was determined to bring more "realism" to movies. I kinda hate Dore Schary. Maybe we can blame him for all the pretentious, bleak movies being made today, wallowing in the ugly "truths" about life, focusing on (and, in my opinion, helping to perpetuate) the worst of humanity rather than the best. No longer uplifting us the way classic movies were designed to do - providing a necessary distraction during the Great Depression and World War II.<br /><br />Well, damn it, we still need that kind of distraction today! There's still plenty of depression and plenty of war. And what are people turning to nowadays when they want to escape? Trashy, brain-deadening Reality TV. Thanks a lot, Dore!	0
I put this second version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to my Top 10 Hitchcock movies. Together with "Frenzy", it's probably the most argued film among the fans of Hitchcock. I consider it far better than, say, "Rebecca", which has gained unreasonably much appreciation.<br /><br />The film contains many ingenious scenes (most of them have been mentioned in other reviews), but that's something to be expected from Hitchcock. It takes almost half an hour until things really start to happen, but that time is used for preparing the following happenings, which are full of intriguing suspense.<br /><br />If you can ignore the clumsy rear projections, the only weakness of this film is the main villain, played by Bernard Miles, who is a rather flat and undeveloped character. Luckily, there is a creepy assassin in the form of Reggie Nalder. And Hank, the little boy, isn't as irritating as most kids in old movies.	1
The movie, which was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, was brilliantly made. It starts with a family of three, a doctor (James Stewart), his wife (Doris Day)- who is a former stage singer, and their young son- my guess is about 10 years old, who are traveling through Morroco for leisure. On the bus, the bump into a French government agent, and they are a little too nice to him. He is killed at the marketplace after finding out the information he sought. He wants to carry this information out to someone, so he goes to the only person he, even slightly, knows: James Stewart. The antagonists kidnap their young boy and say if he tells anything about what the agent told him, his son would be killed. Stewart has to travel to London, because that is where his son is, and where the assasination that the agent told him about would be. The movie is very suspenseful. There are many twists and turns (typical Hitchcock movie). Also, it has just the right amount of comic relief. In addition to all of that, it won an Oscar for Doris Day's performance of "Que sara, sara." This movie is very good. It is hard to find a problem about it. I would certainly reccomend it to all Hitchcock fans and all suspense fans. I give this movie an "A-" only because it is a little bit predictable.	1
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1955) is Alfred Hitchcock's own remake of his 1934 thriller about a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) on vacation in Morocco where they got caught up in a nightmare that include murder, espionage, assassinations and the worst of all, kidnapping of their 10-years-old son. The movie which Hitchcock himself considered superior to the original is a great fun. Stewart and Day have a good chemistry together. The film is filled with the wonderful comical scenes and dialogues as well as the scenes of chilling suspense. <br /><br />The inclusion of "Que Sera, Sera" proved to be a stroke of genius because rarely the song fits the content and plays such an important role in the movie like "Que Sera, Sera" did in "The Man Who Knew Too Much". <br /><br />Hitchcock also treats us to the live music playing from Arthur Benjamin "Storm Cloud Cantata" for almost ten minutes while scene in London's Royal Albert Hall where the assassination of a very important politician was attempted takes place and both, the scene and the cantata are simply marvelous.	1
A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake! Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its own right.<br /><br />This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation? Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it.<br /><br />After their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career.<br /><br />The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something useful.<br /><br />Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film, foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the day.<br /><br />The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the audience.<br /><br />The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-screen sources to be foregrounded effectively.<br /><br />Bernard Miles is a low-key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank.<br /><br />Stewart is excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters.	1
Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including "Rear Window", "Dial M For Murder", "Vertigo", and "To Catch A Thief", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, "Yes, dear", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.<br /><br />There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder). <br /><br />Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in "To Catch A Thief"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of "Spellbound", also).<br /><br />All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films ("Vertigo", "Strangers on a Train"), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces.	1
Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture.<br /><br />James Stewart was an actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job in portraying their characters.<br /><br />Although this is a "light Hitchcock", one can't dismiss it as a failure. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a change of pace for Hitchcock's fans.	1
Distributor: GOODTIMES home video <br /><br />Plot: A pretty high school student is marked for unrelenting terror in this suspense filled made for TV movie. Gail Osborne is new in town. She makes friends, has a boyfriend and everything seems to be going her way. That is until she gets an ominous and frightening phone call while babysitting. After more and more phone calls, she is raped. throughout most of the movie, she tries to find proof that the person did rape her.<br /><br />Audio/Video: This 1987 VHS edition from Goodtimes stinks. There are constant lines at the bottom and top of the screen.<br /><br />Extras: No extras from Goodtimes home video.<br /><br />Final thoughts: This suspense filled made for TV movie was made in 1978, so don't expect many deaths (there are none). If you can find this movie with the Worldvision home video logo on the front, then buy it. But the Goodtimes version is pretty crappy. This can be a little boring, but if you are patient, the ending is pretty good.	1
Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message, thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience...<br /><br />Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them to dinner but then cancels at the last minute...<br /><br />The MacKennas go to a restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis Bernard... <br /><br />The next day in the market place, they are caught in an assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back... <br /><br />Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses... Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as far as the assassins are concerned, too much...<br /><br />To prevent Dr. McKenna from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnapping—how to get the little boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup...<br /><br />The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly and points out that death comes when we least expect it... <br /><br />Stewart is charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him convincingly human—a person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament that actually sets the pace for the entire film... <br /><br />By 1956, the lovely Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents...<br /><br />The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil...	1
Since Paul Kersey was running short of actual relatives to avenge, the third installment in the "Death Wish" saga revolves on him returning to New York to visit an old war buddy. He arrives only to find out that Brooklyn entirely changed into a pauperized gangland and that youthful thugs killed his friend and continuously terrorize all the other tenants of a ramshackle apartment building. Kersey strikes a deal with the local police commissioner, conquers the heart of his blond attorney, blows away numerous villains with an impressive Wildey Magnum gun and gradually trains & inspires the petrified New Yorkers to stand up for themselves. Okay, there's no more point in defending the "Death Wish" series after seeing part three. The 1974 original was a masterpiece that revolved on the social drama as much as it did on the retribution and, even though it was pure exploitation, part two still had quite a few redeeming qualities and at least the events were a logically linked to those occurring in the first. Number three frequently feels like a totally separate franchise. Apparently, Kersey isn't an architect anymore, he's ten times more social and talkative than he used to be and suddenly nobody, not even the police, is against vigilante actions anymore? All these changes and several other aspects make it more than obvious that Michael Winner and Charles Bronson reduced their "Death Wish" success to being a purely brainless and exploitative action series, with a death toll that gigantically increases with each episode, armory that becomes more and more explosive and criminals that get nastier, sleazier, meaner and a lot harder to kill. However, the gentlemen didn't seem to realize that the non-stop spitfire of violence actually creates an opposite effect, namely this extremely monotonous and much more boring than the previous two. I once read a brilliant review that referred to "Death Wish 3" as the pure definition of cinematic masturbation. This description couldn't be more spot-on, as the script tiredly moves itself from one repugnant execution sequence to the next. Particularly the final twenty minutes are a complete "orgy" of gunfire, explosions and executions realized through improvised homemade measures. Yi-Haaa! This entry in the series has quite an interesting supportive cast, including Martin Balsam ("Psycho", "12 Angry Men") as the fatigue neighbor who keeps machine guns in his closet, Ed Lauter ("Family Plot", "The Longest Yard") as the slightly unorthodox copper and even Alex Winter (from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!) in his debut role as one of the thugs.	0
Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better, still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film worse.<br /><br />The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the morbid goings on, and actually works quite well.<br /><br />The original version of this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown. His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him, and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex her vocal chords a little).<br /><br />As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up as well.	1
I had seen this movie when I was a boy (Before WWII) and was surprised that the local library had a copy. Saw it again after some sixty years and forgot how bad it was. This is an example of a movie that was not a "A" movie. No editing, poor script, weak acting and not much directing. Should not even be as high as a "B" Had a laugh at how jaded I've become over the years. Seems to me I thought it was good when I originally saw it.	0
The original The Man Who Knew Too Much brought Alfred Hitchcock acclaim for the first time outside of the United Kingdom. Of course part of the reason for the acclaim was that folks marveled how Hitchcock on such a skimpy budget as compared to lavish Hollywood products was able to provide so much on the screen. The original film was shot inside a studio.<br /><br />For whatever reason he chose this of all his films to remake, Hitchcock now with an international reputation and a big Hollywood studio behind him (Paramount)decided to see what The Man Who Knew Too Much would be like with a lavish budget. This is shot on location in Marrakesh and London and has two big international names for box office. This was James Stewart's third of four Hitchcock films and his only teaming with Doris Day and her only Hitchcock film.<br /><br />I do wonder why Hitchcock never used Doris again. At first glance she would fit the profile of blond leading ladies that Hitchcock favored. Possibly because her wholesome screen image was at odds with the sophistication Hitchcock also wanted in his blondes. <br /><br />Doris does some of her best acting ever in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her best scene is when her doctor husband James Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her their son has been kidnapped by an English couple who befriended them in Morocco. Stewart and Day play off each other beautifully in that scene. But Doris especially as she registers about four different emotions at once. <br /><br />Day and Stewart are on vacation with their son Christopher Olsen in Morocco and they make the acquaintance of Frenchman Daniel Gelin and the aforementioned English couple, Bernard Miles and Brenda DaBanzie. Gelin is stabbed in the back at a market place in Marrakesh and whispers some dying words to Stewart about an assassination to take place in Albert Hall in London. Their child is snatched in order to insure their silence.<br /><br />For the only time I can think of a hit song came out of a Hitchcock film. Doris in fact plays a noted singer who retired from the stage to be wife and mother. The song was Que Sera Sera and I remember it well at the age of 9. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing it in 1956, it even competed with the fast rising Elvis Presley that year. Que Sera Sera won the Academy Award for Best Song beating out such titles as True Love from High Society and the title song from Around the World in 80 Days. It became Doris Day's theme song for the rest of her life and still is should she ever want to come back.<br /><br />In fact the song is worked quite nicely into the plot as Doris sings it at an embassy party at the climax.<br /><br />Instead of doing it with mirrors, Hitchcock shot the assassination scene at the real Albert Hall and like another reviewer said it's not directed, it's choreographed. You'll be hanging on your seats during that moment.<br /><br />This was remake well worth doing.	1
Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1.	0
Anyone who has ever gone on an audition can certainly relate to this one. Great story of an aspiring actor and the pressures he must deal with both personally and professionally in order to make it to the big time. Lou Myers, as Half-Step Wilson, provides many hilarious moments.	1
There were many 'spooky' westerns made in the 30s and early 40s, and although this has a strong beginning, it isn't one. Randy Bowers (John Wayne) stopping at a 'Halfway House' saloon, finds it to be full of dead bodies, the bartender's corpse draped over the bar holding a gun, eyes watching Randy from behind holes cut through eyes in a picture, and a player piano playing "The Loveliest Night of the Year." <br /><br />It was the result of a robbery by the Marvin Black gang, to get Ed Rogers' $30,000. Randy is an investigator who "works alone," who wastes little time in getting arrested, escaping (with Ed's daughter Sally's help) and literally landing in the midst of the Black gang's hideout behind a waterfall. It all moves along fairly quickly. Only one too many chases after Randy slow it down.<br /><br />We even get George Hayes, clean shaven and playing two parts-- Marvin Black, the vilest villain, as well as the Good Citizen, Matt the Mute, who communicates via handwritten messages. Having him play two opposite roles was a good idea, but the writing down of messages thing gets old real fast, even for him, as he finally gives up doing it near the end saying to Sally, "Ah, I'm fed up with this!" You can find George playing a vile, vile, double crossing villain in the serial "The Lost City" (1934).<br /><br />I think this is the only 'Lone Star' film in which the title relates to, or is mentioned in the film! Sally offers her hand to Randy and says, "He's not alone anymore!" Then cut to their arms around each other as they look out facing a lake. Sally's running off with Randy seems too abrupt and not sufficiently prepared for. Too much time spent on horseback escaping the sheriff.<br /><br />Not that bad considering everything, but not that great either. I'd really give it a 4 and a half.	0
Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie.	1
John Wayne is without a doubt one of the most popular and loved actors of all time. His career stretched over forty years, and within that time he starred in films such as "Angel and the Badman", "The Green Berets", "Sands of Iwo Jima", "Rio Bravo", "North to Alaska", and "The Undefeated".<br /><br />The film's listed above are hailed as some of his best, unlike this 1934 effort "Randy Rides Alone", which has been pretty much forgotten about as time's gone on, which is unsurprising, as it's nothing memorable apart from its very short running time of just 53 minutes.<br /><br />A young John Wayne plays Randy Bowers, who for reasons never really explained, arrives at a saloon in the middle of nowhere and finds that everyone inside has been killed. While looking around, a posse arrives and finds Randy there and they arrest him, accusing him of being a gang member and demand to know where the rest of his gang is. He is put in jail accused of the murders. Sally Rogers, whose uncle owned the saloon and was murdered, arrives at the jail to see Randy in order to clarify that he was one of the gang members ( She was hiding in a secret room when the shooting took place ). Sally doesn't believe that Randy is a killer, and doesn't recognise him, so while the sheriff is out, she slips him the keys and Randy escapes. While running away from the sheriff and his posse, Randy conveniently stumbles into the gang's hideout in a cave who were responsible for the murders. Randy sets out to clear his name, and also to bring the gang to justice.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" can be a fun film to watch, especially if you're a John Wayne fan. But at the same time it has far too many flaws that are impossible to ignore. The film is also extremely dated, as you would expect; we have the terrible camera shooting which makes everyone look like they are moving in super-fast motion, and the dialogue is terrible. The acting isn't great either, and Wayne's character is very wooden and he, along with the rest of the cast, look like wooden puppets who are being conducted by someone ( In this case it's by director Harry Fraser ). Harry Fraser is at the helm, and does a good enough job but the story is paper-thin. One can't help but feel that about ten minutes is missing from the start of the film as Randy just arrives out of nowhere at the saloon and is looking to meet someone. An explanation on why Randy was there is giving later on, which turns out to be something like he is a P.I who was sent to investigate the claims that someone is trying to take over the town. To be honest I didn't really pick it up, most of the time I was hoping for the movie to end.<br /><br />But that being said, I didn't find this film to be completely terrible. I enjoyed some of it and found it to be quite fun at times. But it really isn't a great film, and isn't really worth watching or tracking down.<br /><br />Overall, "Randy Rides Alone" is incredibly dated and is a tiresome Western with very few redeeming qualities. Can be fun but overall it isn't a great movie and is certainly one of Wayne's weaker outings.	0
Fun story of a regular guy with big dreams, this low budget film really hits home showing what it is like trying to become an acting success. Great performances by Lou Myers and Brian's neighbor, Alex. I giggled alot and even cried a little.<br /><br />	1
I thought this was a really cute movie - inspiring (makes me want to try acting)- I LOVE Kelly Ripa and it's nice that I can watch this in addition to All My Children - I've already watched it 3 times! Of course I also loved seeing Joe Barbara - especially since Another World went off the air!	1
This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!!	1
Randy Bowers (John Wayne) comes upon the Half Way House at just the right time to take a break from the trail, and discovers a slew of dead bodies inside, among them a man he was supposed to deliver a message to - Ed Rogers, proprietor of the establishment. He's observed by the dead man's niece Sally (Alberta Vaughn), from behind a hidden room, where she remained unobserved during the carnage.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" was directed by Harry Fraser. He uses a filming technique here as in other of his films, where he fast forwards the action from one location to another, usually involving a rider on a horse. It's pretty well done and appears quite innovative in these 1930's era Lone Star Westerns.<br /><br />Pre-Gabby George Hayes is on hand, sans whiskers, and this is the first time I've seen him as a villain. In fact it took a few scenes to realize it was him in a dual role, first as hunchbacked businessman "Matt the Mute", communicating via pencil and paper, only to turn into Marvin Black, leader of a gang of outlaws. Black's gang was responsible for the murders at Half Way House, in an attempt to coerce Sally into selling out to Matt/Marvin. Another staple player is here as well, Yakima Canutt as a Black henchman named Spike. Interestingly, Yakima portrayed a villain named Sam Black in another Fraser/Wayne oater, "Neath the Arizona Skies".<br /><br />There's a fair amount of time-killing horseback riding back and forth between Black's Gang and the Sheriff's posse, as John Wayne's character maneuvers to expose the bad guys. In the end, he saves the day by securing Sally Rogers' thirty thousand dollars, at the expense of destroying the Half Way House, where he exchanges some sticks of dynamite for the loot in a safe. Greedy Marvin Black attempts to open it with his six-shooter, and the explosion is a fitting end for the villain. In his best "Aw shucks" attitude, John Wayne falls under the spell of the pretty Sally Rogers, and alas, Randy rides alone no more!	0
A SUPERMAN Cartoon<br /><br />A huge shipment of gold is being sent across country by train. Using ultra-modern techniques, a sophisticated gang of hooded thieves try to waylay the gold. With intrepid reporter Lois Lane as the only passenger on board, it's Superman to the rescue. But now that it's become a runaway train, can even he stop the BILLION DOLLAR LIMITED?<br /><br />This was another in the series of excellent cartoons Max Fleischer produced for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts.	1
Watching this film today I got the feeling this thing was missing about 10 to 15 minutes or so from the beginning of the story. John Wayne rides up on this trading post/saloon out in the middle of nowhere to meet with the owner about some robberies. All he sees is the signs of a massacre, some dead bodies, signs of a fight and no one alive in sight. That's because the owner's daughter is hidden in a secret room, the kind you find in old English murder mysteries.<br /><br />The reason you find those hidden rooms in those kind of stories is that they were formerly priestholes. Catholic families clinging to the old faith in 16th century England built these things to hide those on the run from royal authorities because of their faith. Not something you see in westerns, but a good gimmick.<br /><br />Unfortunately because of bad editing or writing or both we never know exactly what brought Wayne to this place exactly. But this was a B western and not even a good one at that.<br /><br />Gabby Hayes is in this and he's clean shaven and playing a mute part of the time. An unusual circumstance for the garrulous Gabby.<br /><br />If you want to bother and find out what happens and see a whiskerless Gabby Hayes then see this film.	0
This review is for the UK DVD three-disc box set. Disc one is called Caught in the Act and contains Model Behavior, Chasing Jamie and Fast and Curious. Disc two is called Bedroom Fantasies and contains Blue Plate Special, Falling in Lust Again and Love Potion No. 10. The final disc is called Anything Goes and contains Chatroom, She's the Boss and Legally Yours. Why the other four episodes in the series are not included is a mystery because there is surely enough room on the discs for a lot more material.<br /><br />Each episode opens with the hotel manager Chloe (Lauren Hayes) reading a letter from a satisfied customer. We then get to see the story unfolding as the guests check into the hotel. Blue Plate Special is the exception because this story is from a waitress. The writers should be given credit for coming up with a good variety of story lines. For instance, Model Behavior is about two models vying for the attention of the photo crew; Falling in Lust Again is about a man and woman who parted and rekindle their love when they meet up again at the hotel; She's the Boss is about a put-upon male secretary/dogsbody who shows that he is more of a man than his female boss realised - much to her pleasure. All the episodes lead up to lots of nudity and sex.<br /><br />It should come as no surprise that all the characters in this hotel are beautiful women and handsome hunks. Even the geeky secretaries get transformed when they remove their spectacles and let their hair down. The sex action is plentiful but to me seems too frantic and false. The camera work could also have done with a bit of moderation, spending too much time close up and so moving about to capture everything, and as usual we get loud music during the sex action. Finally, the end credits mention the Palm Canopy Hotel, Singer Island, Florida although my map of Florida shows no Singer Island. The scenery certainly looks more like Florida than Utah or Las Vegas that some people have mentioned. This is quite a good effort and it is a pity that the second series is still awaiting a UK DVD release. 4 stars.	0
Millions in gold is traveling by train to the US treasury. Traveling along is Lois Lane to report on it. Along the way the train is attacked by masked thieves. They detach the car with the armed guards in it and attack the remaining ones. This leads to a vicious fight between the remaining guards and the thieves. The thieves overpower them but then Lois Lane jumps in. She beats the thieves off the train (at one point using a gun) but the train starts to careen out of control. Lois can't stop it and the thieves will stop at nothing to get the gold. Good thing Superman is on the way!<br /><br />Fast, exciting, non-stop action. Probably one of the best of all the cartoons. Just great.	1
It´s long time that I and my wife didn´t see such a boring thriller. It´s definitively NOT a gripping story and it is paced so slowly that we nearly fell asleep. This could be instead a very low budget TV crime series. There are some ridiculous scenes like the one where mafia boss Pirano wants to see the jury lady in a red clothes or another mafioso cannot stop to think about her and so on. Okay perhaps this should have been a romantic thriller but believe me you really don´t miss anything. We gave 4/10.	0
Two years after this movie was made, "The Juror" came out. Don't waste your time on this one. See "The Juror" instead. "The Juror" is essentially the same story as "Trial By Jury," with better acting, better directing and a far more gripping aura about it. William Hurt was not believable as a cop-gone-bad, and Armand Assante couldn't be more unlike a mob boss if they had dressed him in a clown outfit. You didn't become involved enough with Joann Whalley's character to be that upset by what was happening to her. Also, the way in which she interacted with the jury wasn't compelling or interesting in any way. Kathleen Quinlan's role as a hooker/killer wasn't fleshed out enough and quite frankly was unnecessary for to the plot.	0
A antique shop-owner in NYC, played by Joanne Whalley(Valerie Alston)gets put on a US District Court jury, on a trial of a known Mafioso Armand Asante(Rusty Pirone), and most of this very slow-paced film revolves around attempts of Pirone attempting to get Whalley to acquit him of murder, by threatening to kill her son, and herself. Much action ensues, involving gruesome mob-rub outs, interspread with Willam Hurt as the go-between. Much of this silly, disjointed mess surrounds Hurt and Asante's obsession with Whalley, courtroom scenes that we've all seen time and again, and an ending that is unbelievable. 3/10 is probably going easy on this waste of time.	0
The movie is a happy lullaby, was made to make us sleep. And that´s what we do, as we dream about the top beautiful Natasha Henstridge. No screenplay, no deep characters, nothing special. So, let´s sleep.	0
This is without doubt the worst movie i have ever seen. And believe me, I have seen a lot of movies. The unbelievable twist the movie makes - going from an extremely bad "Alien lifeforms inhabit earth" movie with sickening bad acting, to a film that tries to spread an Archchristian "Judgement day is at hand, seek Jesus or though shall burn for all eternity in the fiery debts of hell" message - left me stunned after being tormented for 85 minutes. Even religious Christians must be ashamed or furious by watching their beliefs being posted like this. I didn't know what to do with myself when I watched the horrible acting that could have been performed by 7-year-olds. Simply disgusting. I am not a Christian nor very religious. But if I had been, I would no longer be afraid of Hell. Rich Christiano has shown be something much, much worse.	0
There is a lot to like in this film, despite its humble trappings of a preachy PC tale about rape and the perp always faring better than the victim. The movie did create a fair bit of suspense in the mystery surrounding who was sending the notes. (I, for one, was sure it was the teacher. In fact, that would have been more probable plot-wise because the idea of the best-friend's boy-friend kind of came out of nowhere. I guess the point of that is that "rape is omnipresent. You never know who it is going to be".) Ms. Beller is luminous as always (yet see KB discussion board for my qualification of this statement). Like all preachy films the plot lasts 15 minutes past the climax so you might want to quit watching at that point. Unless you are really curious to find out what happens to Phillip. Blythe Danner, as the mom, is in the role she was born to play: the fretting, over-protective mom. Some good 70s scenes for 70s fans. (The dark bar that the father goes to in order to drink away his pain is all dark-stained beams, barrels, oak and cork). A must for Beller fans and highly recommended for fans of 70s High School melodrama or 70s kitsch in general.	1
Like a lot of the comments above me, also I though this was the average scifi movie, but unfortunately it was not. I found it rather patronizing, and indeed, preaching.<br /><br />But that is not the only comment. The scenes are very 'artificial' (not as in scifi, as I will explain a in a few moments). (The next sentence is a small spoiler.) The movie more or less represents a discussion between two groups. The physical setting of a discussion typically involves two or three men standing next to each other, the middle one typically speaking. In the worst case, the other party is represented by one person.<br /><br />Also the interviews the reporters have are very artificial, sometimes even unprofessional. For example sometimes the discussion is between the reporters (I mean, from a point of the interviewed, 'akward'). Moreover the interview persons always stay calm, they say everything without normal emotions. I.e. you cannot tell whether they lie or not, are mad or not. They show almost nothing.<br /><br />This is also very unprofessional, the 'Christian' reporters always believe everything they are told by the people they interview.<br /><br />Bottom line:<br /><br />All conversations contain:<br /><br />- facts<br /><br />- pro/con arguments<br /><br />There are no lies. Nobody lies. (The next sentence is a spoiler, ignore if you still plan to see the movie) The only lie happening is to demonstrate how 'bad' non-believers are.<br /><br />This makes me conclude that the movie is a B-movie. It is very similar to 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' (from the 50's), but this movie also has an annoying, wrong set discussion about aliens and Christian belief.<br /><br />NOTE: I have no intention to insult Christians, people who believe in aliens or whomever else. This is a thought I have about the movie, not about people.<br /><br />Moreover I would like to note that I don't know whether the actors are bad or were just given terrible scripts.	0
This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />It's marketed as as Sci-Fi when in fact it's nothing more than a Christian recruiting tool.<br /><br />It tells you quite a bit about the state of the Christian church, when they have to resort to deception just to get you to listen to their sales pitch. But then again what do you expect from an organization that would go through such great lengths to help protect such an enormous amount of child molesters in their organization.<br /><br />Religion is full of nothing but sexual deviants, hypocrites, and war mongers. Let's not forget, our bumbling former President actually came out and said that "God told him" to invade Iraq. And nobody questioned if he was hearing voices, or seeing things? <br /><br />Anyway, going of the subject here. No this movie has nothing to do with UFOs whatsoever, it's nothing more than a religious production.	0
As you can read the only good comment about this movie is made by someone who actually watch it AT HIS CHURCH ! <br /><br />Anyway, movie had a good B movie sci-fi beginning, everything was there to make a good entertaining , easy to watch movie, then everything felt in this religious Jesus-will-save-everyone brainwashing mode.<br /><br />story start with 2 main characters, 2 reporters but it fast give the first role to that Jesus freak who is there to save everyone's soul with this con-descendant attitude.<br /><br />In a few words: this movie goes from entertaining to brainwashing in about 30 minutes<br /><br />Waste of time, waste of money... AVOID IT	0
When one watches the animated Superman shorts of the 1940s, the similarity of the plots can become a bit boring - the adversary is most often a mad scientist in a hidden headquarter, threatening Metropolis with some evil invention - death rays, mechanical monsters, electric earthquake, magnetic telescope, what have you.<br /><br />This one is refreshingly different. The bad ones drive around in a car, shooting and bombing, but the center of action is the gold train (on which Lois Lane travels, as the only press reporter, it seems). Train movies have their own typical ingredients, from the 1903 Great Train Robbery on, and quite some are featured here: decoupling cars in motion, running on the roofs, taking the steam locomotive from the tender in the back, fighting with the engineer, a switch turned to deroute the train on a side track, the fall (of people or the whole train) from a high bridge... it's all in the few minutes of this lovely piece.<br /><br />But it wouldn't be a Superman film if he didn't do some incredible feats (involving balancing and high-precision placement) to ultimately win the day. If you're a fan of train movies, don't miss this. It's in the public domain and can be legally downloaded from archive.org.	1
OK, this movie, was the worst display I have seen in years. The actors weren't to bad (I figured it was a b-movie so they were doing b-movie acting). Anyways, I watched this movie, thinking, OH COOL a UFO Sci-Fi movie. WRONG. It was just an excuse for radical Christians to push a message onto people. The last scene was extremely messed up. That is a horrible thing to do to a person to make them believe in something. What someone believe in is a matter of opinion. This movie just shows how corrupted religion is, especially Christianity.<br /><br />If you want to watch a b-movie, this ain't. If you want to watch a movie that is TRYING to brainwash the masses. Well this is the pick of the litter. go right for it. If you are going to convey a message, do it, don't force it. Ridiculous, that people would abuse the media to such a degree. Especially, Christians.	0
This movie is nothing more than Christian propaganda. It started off like a good sci-fi movie and then works a syrupy sweet Christian theme into the story which is totally unrelated. I had to turn it off half way through because I felt tricked into renting it. The catholic church has officially announced that aliens do NOT contradict belief in God.<br /><br />The movie is slightly entertaining despite this but the dialog is unbelievable, writing and acting is mostly rubbish and all in all, this movie is mostly a stinker to be avoided.<br /><br />There was obviously some research done into the phenomenon by the filmmakers, but then you quickly realize that it is only for the purpose to debunk and inject their own paranoid religious views into a valid interesting subject. If you are a zealous religious fanatic who believes in demons and angels , you will love this movie.	0
This movie starts really good.<br /><br />After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.<br /><br />Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.<br /><br />Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...<br /><br />This movie starts really good.<br /><br />After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.<br /><br />Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.<br /><br />Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...	0
While all of the Fleischer/Famous Studios "Superman" cartoons are excellent, "Billion Dollar Limited," the third in the series, is probably the best of the lot in terms of overall animation, plot, and pacing. Why it wasn't even nominated for an Oscar as Best Animated Short for 1942 (Incredibly enough, only the first one was) in inexplicable.<br /><br />Here, Lois Lane is assigned to cover the transfer of one billion dollars in gold to the U.S. Mint. Masked gangsters in their super-powered (for 1942) car take off after the train, determined to get that gold. Without giving too much away, what ensues is a thrill ride for both the characters and the audience, with truth, justice, and Superman triumphant at the end.<br /><br />As they did in all the Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons, Clayton "Bud" Collyer and Joan Alexander, who played Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane on radio, have the voice work honors here, and Fleischer perennial Jack Mercer gets a little to do as one of the bad guys, as well.	1
I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath. There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor the next.<br /><br />Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning, testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's too rare in movies and television.	1
My wife spotted this film on the aisle at a local video store. From the cover it looked like a science-fiction film, but upon turning it over my wife saw Rebecca St. James was in the film, realized it was a Christian movie, and suggested we watch it. We are conservative evangelicals but we also know that "Christian" films have a poor reputation in the mainstream. Nevertheless, we decided to give it a screening.<br /><br />To be fair, there were a few things I liked about the film. The musical score - much of which was orchestrated - was quite good. The cinematography was also pretty good considering it was a lower-budget movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately, any virtue in this film's production work was lost on a regrettable script. The film begins with an interesting premise - UFO abductions - but by midway through the feature the storyline veers wildly into an evangelistic crusade spearheaded by the movie's two main characters... which then veers wildly into a treatise on the Rapture. At least the Frank Peretti-inspired "The Visitation" (which was itself a deeply flawed film) had an endgame that tied together the movie's premise. "Unidentified" ends nowhere even close to where it started, which is a huge letdown.<br /><br />As for the acting? The supporting acting ranges from decent to awful. (Rebecca St. James plays a bit part and is passable.) For their part, a few of the main characters are manned capably enough. Sadly, their talents are wasted on characters so one-dimensional in their personalities so as to be unbelievable. The "protagonists" are anything but; you know it's bad when two Christian viewers find the most vocal Christian character in the film to be the most annoying.<br /><br />A final note on the evangelistic tone of this movie, which will be of more interest to Christian than non-Christian readers. In a word, it is embarrassing. Other Christian films like Carmen's "The Champion" and Peretti's "The Hangman's Curse" have managed to communicate a genuinely uncompromising portrait of the Christian faith without sounding preachy or oppressive. This film, by contrast, is a sledgehammer that feels so heavy-handed and lacking in tact that a non-Christian would have a hard time taking it seriously.<br /><br />I do believe that the filmmaker's heart is in the right place, and I applaud efforts to create good Christian film. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. If your church is looking for a screening of a good Christian film, consider "Mercy Streets," the aforementioned "The Champion," or (if you're Pentecostal) Robert Duvall's provocative "The Apostle." <br /><br />As for "Unidentified?" Rent it if you must, but screen it before you show it to a non-Christian or a larger audience.	0
First of all, i have nothing against Christianity. i believe, every person has the right to believe what he or she chooses. But i cannot imagine how dumb a person has to be to believe this! What a waste of believers' money. They'd better use it to feed some starving families in the third world countries. I don't want to talk about talk acting or plot of this "movie", because I couldn't find any of those in this. Story's simple - two reporters, one (A) is atheist, the other (B) for some sake has abandoned religion. B regains his confidence in religion and teaches A a lesson - believe in Christ or go to hell. This message appears after like ten minutes and keeps repeating to the end of the movie. People, do not believe the rating of this "movie", read reviews first. I didn't and wasted an hour of my life :( PS: Why is it classified as sci-fi? Because of those few weird sounds and a bit of bright light from the sky? PPS: U.F.O. = Satan's evil doings? That's a new one :)	0
Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.<br /><br />Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.<br /><br />We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.<br /><br />So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.<br /><br />This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.<br /><br />It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.<br /><br />This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.<br /><br />And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?<br /><br />Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.<br /><br />For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.<br /><br />This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes.	0
Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.	0
Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.<br /><br />Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.<br /><br />Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.<br /><br />Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.<br /><br />Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this – for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover.	1
This is the third movie in a month I have watched that did not go the way I expected. The first two being The Black Dahlia and Hollywoodland, neither of which gave any new ideas of who committed the crimes.<br /><br />I have always had a fascination with UFOs and was so excited to see a new movie on the subject of UFO investigation that was not a comedy. But after about 30 minutes, it all went horribly wrong.<br /><br />I could have stood for the acting, the camera angles, the stereotypes if only there was a good story about chasing UFOs, but none here. I am not saying there was anything wrong with the subject matter, but Netflix pushed this movie as a UFO skeptic and a UFO believer investigating multiple sitings.<br /><br />I stopped watching about half way thru. Can't believe I wasted that much time with this one. Please don't make the same mistake I did.	0
The only reason I gave this movie a 2 and not a 1 was because for some reason I felt compelled to finish it out! Basically, I wanted to see if there were going to be any aliens, any UFO's, anything at all suggested by the title of the movie, the cover of the movie and the beginning of the movie! I was very disappointed to see religion being thrown into the mix the way that it was. This could have been used to the movie's advantage, but I felt, instead, that the movie was trying to send subliminal messages to me! Finally, how big was this cast's wardrobe!? I became so distracted by the number of different, and extremely bright, shirts each character had on in every new scene that I began to wonder if this movie wasn't really supposed to be classified under "poor comedy".<br /><br />toe thumbs down!	0
I saw the second part of this beautiful period piece set on a ship sometime in the 19th century. Golding's book must be responsible for some of the superb dialogue but everything else was good too! I especially liked the way they created the period and feeling of being on the ship so well. For me this had a feeling of completeness about it which I know I won't be able to convey in words... Perhaps it was the way they mixed in technical and historical details about sailing in the eighteen hundreds to the story without messing it up. Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent, as was the rest of the cast. It's not often a mini-series sends me to the "zone", but this one did.	1
The three-part series ended last night on PBS, which I believe was its first wide exposure to an American audience. The richness of its text and the unique quality of its filming are high points. It seems very novel to view and hear an action play employing the vernacular of Georgian England, Jane Austen's filmed drawing rooms being the primary example of that form of speech. Yet it is the scope of drama overwhelming the senses that makes quaint language fit perfectly into each and every scene. Such bold exposure to an old reality is evocative of literary giants like Tolstoy or Shakespeare while at the same time entertaining in the manner of a C. S. Forester or Patrick O'Brian sea saga. The universality of basic human condition lies at its center.<br /><br />Narrator Talbot as played by an actor with the almost perfectly appropriate name of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely not even Dickens could beat that one!) alternates between stodgy jingoism and extreme vulnerability, an acting tour de force. Indeed, I cannot recall among this very fine cast any misstep of interpretation. That is a tribute not only to the actors themselves, but to the director as well.<br /><br />The most impressive element, however, is how perfectly life aboard a man-of-war en route to Australia in the early 1800's is presented. That is especially true of how the motion of the ship becomes almost a character itself, something sea stories rarely take into account except as backdrop. Anyone who has ever experienced mal de mer in person will recognize it instantly, and appreciate all the more how difficult it must have been to recreate within the context of filming.<br /><br />This is no fanciful Pirates of the Caribbean. Some effort must be expended in attaining an understanding of its nuances.	1
This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike "Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision"	1
Wow... just... wow. There are a lot of reviews on this movie already but I wanted to add some comments of my own. I agree with most reviewers who have said this movie has terrible acting, writing, and directing - whoo boy does it ever. However, I think there is some other problems here.<br /><br />1. Why is Christian belief and the allowance for extraterrestrial life mutually exclusive? The film acts as though you just can't be a Christian and also allow for the possibility? Why? They ever-so-briefly touch on this in the film (i.e. "The Bible doesn't say there is aliens." "Well, the Bible doesn't say there isn't.), but the actual rebuttal is never answered. The Bible really doesn't say there isn't. So how about dealing with the question instead of dismissing it out of hand? Or better yet, acknowledge that this is an infinite universe we live in and if we believe in an infinite God there is the possibility that he made some other life somewhere and has his own plans for them.<br /><br />2. How come the ONLY two explanations for the abductions that are valid are demons and hoax? What about sleep paralysis and night terrors which have been linked to abduction experiences? What if it's something else entirely? Too bad the film makers already have their minds made up.<br /><br />3. The film makers claim that all who have had abduction experiences have had ties to the occult. That's a pretty big claim to make without any factual evidence to present. I'm not necessarily arguing that they don't, but if you're going to say something so asinine you'd better have the facts to back it up.<br /><br />4. Why does the other reporter (not the Greasy Haired Blonde Guy, the other one) always have his hands in his pockets? It's hard to take someone seriously when they're constantly playing pocket pool.<br /><br />I WISH this had been an exploration of Christian faith and UFO phenomena, but unfortunately the film makers were too concerned with their "Faith Message" to care much about make a thought provoking movie. As a Christian myself, this saddens me.	0
I happened across this movie while channel-surfing and it seemed to be yet another poorly- made Christian film about The End Times (which I find rather entertaining because they take themselves so seriously). To be fair, I only saw the last 30 minutes, so I missed the part about UFOs and the Sci-Fi stuff. But it was long enough for me to categorize it as an embarrassing and appalling representation of the Christian faith, as well as a rather pathetic film in any artistic sense.<br /><br />As a film, the script was terrible, the acting was mediocre, and the pacing was poor. The cinematography and direction were sub-par: no interesting visuals, no layered plot line, no creativity. Don't just blame it on the budget- films can still be interesting without special effects. This wasn't. Christian films cannot excuse their mediocrity and unoriginality in the artistic sphere just because of their message. And the message here was hardly "Christian."<br /><br />**Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is targeted towards Christians**<br /><br />First off, it is unethical in any business to bait-and-switch your customers. I don't like being told I can win a free iPod only to realize I have to spend $300 at participating stores first. Nonchristians don't like being told they're watching a Sci-Fi film and then get bombarded with Christian propaganda that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Hidden agendas don't win you any friends, much less converts. <br /><br />Secondly, you should not use overt threats to convince people your beliefs are true. The actors who represented Christians came off as callous, smug bullies when dealing with the skeptical "unbeliever"-- they even go so far as to stage the rapture in order to scare him into believing. Representational dialogue: "Turn to Jesus- OR GO TO HELL!" "Fine, don't believe me- BUT YOU'LL BE SORRY!" "The day you die, I can guarantee you'll wish you paid more attention to this Jesus stuff- WHEN YOU LAND IN THE BELLY OF HELL!" OK, I may be exaggerating, but it certainly came off in the same manner. If you think this is a "clear message for Christ," you're wrong. I don't recall Jesus using threats and coercion. And I don't think people can make an authentic decision to believe in him out of fear. So Christians, please don't use this as a "witnessing tool" for your "unsaved" friends. It is heavy-handed, offensive, and inaccurate in portraying a true Christian message.<br /><br />Thirdly, the theology was bad. Apart from characterizing Jesus as a means of hell-insurance, it gave no room for debate or discussion and didn't attempt to engage the issue of whether UFOs or alien life could exist. Instead, it offered one pat answer: "UFOs are the devil's scheme to deceive people when the rapture happens," which is neither biblical nor widely-accepted by most Christians. As the Bible doesn't mention UFOs or aliens, you can't use it as a source to draw conclusions one way or the other. The rapture isn't necessarily even a widely-accepted, sound biblical concept, though nowadays most evangelical Christians seem to believe it because of a popular book series. If you do your research (as so many of the supportive reviewers are suggesting), the idea of two comings of Christ (the first as the rapture) is a relatively new phenomena in Church tradition, popularized by some traveling evangelists around the turn of the 20th century. The majority of orthodox Christians will probably find this film's message to be a pretty big stretch that rests on a lot of unsupported presuppositions.<br /><br />Basically, this film misses the mark both as a worthwhile piece of entertainment and as an accurate representation of Christianity and its beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it.	0
Movies about U.F.O.'s are always a nice way to kill some time, so on a rainy Sunday evening I picked up this flick, expecting what can be expected from a direct-to-DVD U.F.O. mystery.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong! At about halfway in the movie it becomes very apparent that the U.F.O. theme is just a deceptive way of attracting unsuspecting viewers to this Christian propaganda. And this is not just a Christan movie from an average Christian. No, this is Christianity of the extremist fundamentalist kind. The scary kind.<br /><br />In the end of this movie, the non-believing lead is tricked by their colleagues using a practical joke in thinking that the Rapture has started (which is believed by Christians to be the happening in the end of time where true believers are going to heaven and non-believers are left behind).<br /><br />When the joke is explained, it is suggested that it is always better to become a true believer, 'just in case we Christians are right'. Now that's a lamest excuse ever to become a Christian if you ask me!<br /><br />This movie still tries to convert non-believers using scare tactics. "Believe in God or you will go to Hell!" is the message here. Simple, but quite offensive, really. Especially because this movie is being sold as something completely different.<br /><br />Now let's assume you're a Christian fundamentalist yourself and you're not likely to be offended by the themes in this movie, is this a good movie? I'm afraid it isn't. No actually I'm lying: I'm GLAD it isn't! The acting is horrible, the pacing is horrible, the plot is horrible, especially the ending is laughably bad. As soon as the movie starts, you immediately sense that this is going to be worse than you expected, and you will be right.<br /><br />In the first half hour, it seems to at least attempt to set up a passable U.F.O. mystery, but then suddenly they bring in this Count Dracula look-alike that starts babbling about the devil. At first you just think this dude is just a crazy maniac, but as it turns out, he actually represents the real views of the makers of this movie. As soon as you start realizing this, you know how this is going to end up. But actually it ends up worse.<br /><br />Avoid.	0
It's not a movie, but an experience!<br /><br />Not the usual eye candy I thought it would be. Too many things are happening at once, your senses almost couldn't handle it. A product of cutting-edge technology (we were torn between just sitting back to enjoy the show and putting our 3D glasses on and off to decipher the magic), the music is great (it's a concert!), the Disney characters are in it (and you get to BE part of their world), it's funny, it's magical, it's exciting--I know this is beginning to sound like an advertisement--but it really is that awesome! Beats Christmas in bringing out the kid in you!<br /><br />This attraction alone already makes going to Disney all worth it. ;)	1
I'm not a Disney fan at all, but I happen to be in Orlando for a friend's wedding. So my traveling partner and I went to Disney for a few days. I haven't seen a good 3-D effect in, well..ever. So I usually try to stay away from these presentations. The 3-D effect in this was so good. I'm a grown man of 38, and even I wanted to try and reach out and touch. It's THAT good! Word of advice. At the end, look to the back of the theater on the wall. Put it like this...the first time I saw it, the effect wasn't working. So I told my friend..."It would have been nice if...." My friend said, "That's exactly what happens. It's not working for some reason." It's an awesome show. You will NOT be disappointed!!!	1
I recently visited the Magic Kingdom as an adult with my mom, her best friend and my adult sister. Disney World is often mistakenly perceived as a place for just children, but when you see quality shows like Mickey's Philharmagic, you realize that the magic of Disney is for everyone! It was such a great show that we left the theater and turned around and got in line again. And then a third time. It was absolutely breathtaking. I would encourage anyone who goes to Disney World to check out this show, which is not just a show but a world wind, fun filled ride with Donald as he once again lets his temper get him in trouble!	1
My mom and I, rented this movie. I mean, we love those type of Sci-Fi flicks, whether they be big Hollywood flicks or Indy flicks.<br /><br />But oh, we were fooled!! Two journalists are investigating a UFO abduction in a small city in Texas. Halfway through, all the sudden things get all christain on us. My mom and I believe in god and Jesus and the Devil, but the way this movie was preaching it, made it annoying. All I really have to say, is that we are Christian, but even we like to have fun. So don't blame christians as a whole, just blame the christians who need to suck the fun out of this movie.<br /><br />In fact you can clearly understand the directors stance on UFO's, and that is that he believes it is all demonic. Now, i could say some words, but I will not. All I will say is, that DO NOT WATCH this movie, unless you feel like being preached. In fact many times it states that we must be perfect in order to enter heaven. Well, last time I checked, the only perfect person died on a cross.	0
"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.	1
Im warning you people out there, this is just a waste of your time. I am being honest when I'm saying that this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Its just a move about Christian propaganda! Don't throw away your life, don't see it!<br /><br />I think they made the movie so more people will believe in Jesus or something, but it works in the opposite way. The actors are all newbies, the story is just fuzzy!<br /><br />I think this movie is a work of the devil. <br /><br />This movie is just not worth seeing, so please take my advice and don't!	0
This is the worst movie I have seen to date. 85 minutes of utterly bad acting,(half the cast seem to be suffering from Asperger's syndrome) ghastly wigs, strange make-up (including tide lines around wig areas) and holier than thou characters with holier than thou dialogue that makes you want to puke. One comical aspect of this film, if you have the patience to watch it, is the sheer overwhelming number of costume changes the unfortunate cast appear in from scene to scene - was this film backed by a catalogue manufacturer of desperately dodgy pastel casual wear? Were the cast paid in clothes for their efforts? They certainly did not deserve paying with anything else! This appalling effort of a film delivers a rambling plot in the first half, blending into an equally confused arch Christian biblefest in the latter. The entire cast and production team should be burnt at the stake, or at the very least crucified!	0
This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......<br /><br />I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).<br /><br />Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house? <br /><br />I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR.	0
This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it whilst eating fish and chips.<br /><br />Riding on the back of the Tron hype this series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan. He'd go around solving crimes and the lot.<br /><br />All I really remember was his fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him out generally.<br /><br />When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little too. Was it real or maybe a dream?	1
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.	1
After a good start, it turned out to be the worst piece of holier than thou propaganda i've ever seen. This movie is an open insult designed to make you feel bad about not reading the "holy bible".<br /><br />To resume the...OK let's call it a plot... Basically alien don't abduct people (that we already know..). No, in fact its demonic forces abducting people which are in new age stuff or witchcraft, or read porno magazine (as one protagonist does).<br /><br />It's complete with the little emotional piano music when the lead character realize he must blindly follow Christ to be saved.<br /><br />a quote sums it all , imagine a subtle piano music in the background : "You can't let others, even those you love, stop you from following the Lord.."<br /><br />and we are supposed to live in an enlightened age...still work to do. Boycott this piece of crap	0
THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's goofy "buck teeth" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed; that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent.	1
The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.<br /><br />The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as "the wanderer." Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.<br /><br />The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the "Northern eighteen styles kicks" along with some "Southern five styles boxing." Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.<br /><br />Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's "Shaft" style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.<br /><br />Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.<br /><br />Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.<br /><br />Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10 <br /><br />Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): "The Little Eagle Wing God Lance." <br /><br />Tan: "Just a knickknack."	1
The DVD for this film is by Alpha Video--a company that almost always releases the poorest quality prints. In Alpha's defense, often that is the only print available, but the specialize in public domain and cheap-o films. If you can find another print by a different company, try it first as the print for this film is scratchy and faded. Still, compared to most Alpha DVDs, this one is excellent--especially since the sound is pretty clear (and Alpha never seems to include closed captionings--even with films with horrid sound).<br /><br />A man has been dating a lady for a very long time. One night, he's a bad boy and spends the night with another woman. Soon afterwords, he comes clean to his fiancée about this, she forgives him and they marry.<br /><br />Very soon after the wedding, he gets a frantic call from the other woman--she NEEDS to see him and has just tried to kill herself. When they meet, he learns that she has an STD and she wanted him to know that he, too, might now have it. Then, although there is a nurse there and they are treating her for the suicide attempt, she somehow finds a gun and kills herself! The makes a HUGE mistake. He does not tell his doctor and he doesn't tell his new wife. Some time passes and now she and the baby are infected! At this point, the doctor meets with the guy and tells him about the importance of getting treatment and they shows him rooms filled with horribly infected people (actually, these were just films of people with STDs that they spliced into the film--most of whom have syphilis).<br /><br />In some ways the film is very progressive. It addresses a serious issue and it's interesting how the film encourages couples NOT to wait to get married but to marry fast and give in to those sexual urges--but only with each other (not bad advice at all). On the other hand, the film never exactly says what it's talking about. They never use the terms STD, VD or the like, nor does it even name the diseases. Often it is referring to syphilis but at other times it's talking about herpes or other STDs--the information just isn't very clear or specific--a VERY common problem with such films from this era. Audiences at the time must have felt quite confused about what they were seeing and many of the more naive probably needed to have some of their 'faster' friends explain it all to them! <br /><br />Speaking of "such films", in the 1930s-50s, lots of small and often sleazy production companies made films decrying the dangers of drugs and sex (though often they really just wanted to promise a bit of cheesecake for audiences who usually could not see such racy fare in Hollywood films). Many of these are hysterically funny since they are so over-done and the information so inaccurate. The most famous examples are REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS (both by the same two-bit production company) and compared to how salacious and stupid those two films are, this cheap film seems like it should be in the Criterion Collection!! <br /><br />Interestingly, there are weirdos out there (I would definitely be included among them) that enjoy seeing the films because they are often so bad and so horribly made that they are great fun. This one, however, isn't THAT bad nor is the message that convoluted and the film of the victims isn't as grotesque as some similar films. While the message really should have been more explicit and useful, for a 1933 film it's pretty good--despite the occasionally poor acting and the ludicrous suicide scene. Remember kids--just say 'NO' to suicide!<br /><br />Oh, by the way, the "two years of treatment" they talk about in the film was actually the norm for syphilis back in 1933. Nowadays, it's a lot more treatable--as are the rest of the STDs.	0
This movie is an evolutionary piece - from Terminator to Robocop .<br /><br />Stan Winston did the SPFX !<br /><br />In this film, a scientist working in a sinister robotics company with a really creepy boss(they always are) gets is killed by them in a horrible lab explosion and has his brain placed inside an indestructible robot body .<br /><br />The rest of this movie goes on with a romance angle as this Cyborg/Man regains consciousness and wreaks havoc while trying to communicate with his wife, played by the gorgeous(back then in 1986) Terri Austin . (He tries to reconnect with his old life, like in that scene in RoboCop)<br /><br />The rest of this movie is about breaking things, while trying to defeat the evil his evil boss from recapturing him for some ill-defined 'turn humans into cyborgs' project .<br /><br />This film pays homage to previous movies like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL - - as the cyborg breaks free like the giant robot Gort does .<br /><br />Except for the 'Frankenstein Suite' designed by Stan Winston, this movie's production values are typically Canadian: SLEAZY ! ! <br /><br />Pam Grier stars in this film as an hired killer-commando, a cheap role of the likes she was doing so much of during the 80's .<br /><br />As for a Sci-Fi Horror B movie, out of 4 Stars, this film ranks about a <3	1
The combination of amazing special effects and oscar worthy acting makes the Vindicator one of the most important sci-fi films of recent years. For some reason still unknown to me this gem was found in a bargain bin, why some worthless human thought it right to dirty a modern classic by relagating to a bargain bin is beyond me. I have never been so terrified by a man in tin foil and random bursts of fire. Forget Terminator, Robocop, Aliens, and other films that blaintly ripped off this masterpiece, the vindicator is an unstoppable force.	1
I thought I was going to see a UFO movie. Instead, I saw a movie that was trying to make the audience (me) make the decision to accept Christ in my life, or risk going to Hell. The whole UFO thing was one big red herring!!! The acting in it was pretty pathetic. In fact, it looked as though some people from an Evangelic Church just got got together and decided they wanted to make a movie. All the characters talked as though they were in church conversing with other church members. It wasn't real-life dialog at all. I wish I had read some reviews before seeing this movie so I wouldn't have wasted my money on it. If, on the other hand, you are into the whole church scene in a big way, and want to see a demonstration of how to push your views (no matter how limiting) onto other people, then by all means, go see it.	0
I just happened to stumble to this film and checked IMDb for more information: Score 6,7, well... not so bad. Genre: scifi...good I like scifi. So I got the movie and I was looking forward to have a relaxing Sunday evening watching it. But but...NO.<br /><br />As in summary, this isn't a movie at all. It is a religious advertisement, including: preatching about Jesus, god, devil, end of the world etc. Movie starts with a epic abduction story: Driving at night, car stops, bright light and so on... Well, actually that was the film. Last of this ..ummm... frankly I don't know what to call it...was dialogue about end of the world and last judgement. Quite a same stuff what these TV-preachers tell you, but they are "good" at it.<br /><br />Honestly, if you wan't to see a scifi movie or something with UFOs, please stay far away from this "thing". It has nothing to do with them. If you want to hear some cuckoo head's opinion what the bible has to say and what you should do. Then go ahead and watch this "thing", but I still prefer going to the church at Sunday.<br /><br />This is complete bull. (and evangelical Christian propaganda, as another users said= Well... I should have red another users comments before I got the movie. <br /><br />(27% of voters have rated this "thing" as 10. Yeah, right. Please, go somewhere else to do your propaganda)	0
Looks as if the Robocop writer has been wholesale looting The Vindicator. This is a very solid horror/action movie about a man set up in an accident to be used in cruel experiment. Anyone who have seen Robocop knows the story. Watch out for Pam Grier as a bitchy and darn good looking assassin. This highly effective, violent and bloody horror movie may not be to everyones liking, but this Canadian outing is well worth seeking out for anyone who is fan of the genre. 8/10	1
as a fan of robocop, i always loved this movie. i seen it when it first came out, and finally i bought it on DVD from Brazil, it was never released in the us on DVD. i like the film, but like everything else in this world, everyone has their opinion, love it or hate it. no matter what a movie does, someone will always say "why didn't they do it another way?" in other words you cant please everyone. if you love robocop, you will love this film. to me, its so unique thats its not cheesy, or silly like a lot of lower budget movies. this film always kept me interested. i can see a few scenes that robocop borrowed from here, but tell me what movies don't do that? a lot of films use other ideas from other movies, and sometimes change them around. fun film!	1
Christian Propaganda...Lots of fear mongering...<br /><br />This is not SciFi, this is ChriFi (Christian fiction).The movie started out OK but took a sharp Christian right turn. From then on it was all about god, jc, the holy bible and the devil . The ufo's are really just demonic deception to fool people in to believing that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Satan's idea is to trick you in to thinking that there could be more to life than what is in the bible.<br /><br />The abductions could be used to explain away the rapture. The people left behind would believe it was a mass alien abduction, instead of god taking all the Christians to heaven. No reason to repent if its aliens. The deeper message in the movie is that if you don't believe in god and have jc in your life than you believe in nothing and your life has no purpose.	0
This movie should have come with a disclaimer that it was akin to the Left Behind series. I did not know it would be a Bible-thumping movie. I expected it to truly be a movie about UFOs and alien abduction for entertainment's sake. As previous reviewer comments, it would be fine to show at a church, but not at a public theater, at least not without the consumer's prior knowledge of what the premise of the movie is about. I felt deceived out of my $$ spent for this movie, as nothing in the summary refers to its religious overtones. If you go to church, it'll probably be shown there for free some time. Other than the cover-up of its true subject matter, the movie was fine as far as acting and script were concerned. But I have to say I walked out an hour into the movie when I saw what direction it was headed and that I was not going to be entertained, but preached to.	0
Scientist Carl Lehman (well played by David McIlwraith) gets blown up something terrible in a deliberate chemical explosion. He has his brain transplanted in the body of a nearly indestructible metal cyborg suit by his evil colleagues who are led by wicked obsessive fellow scientist Alex Whyte (a perfectly hateful portrayal by Richard Cox). Lehman embarks on an all-out killing spree. It's up to nasty mercenary Hunter (a wonderfully loathsome turn by the divine Pam Grier) to put a stop to him. Director Jean-Claude Lord, who previously helmed the under-appreciated slasher psycho thriller "Visiting Hours," stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable verve and maintains a zippy pace throughout, thus ensuring that this flick sizes up as an enjoyably trashy sci-fi/horror action outing. Paunchy character thesp Maury Chaykin easily cops top acting honors as disgusting fat creep Burt, who in the movie's single most tasteless sequence has a brutal fistfight with Lehman's pregnant wife Lauren (a winning performance by the lovely Teri Austin). Stan Winston's nifty make-up f/x and Paul Zaza's thrilling score further add to the overall sleazy fun.	1
This movie was poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly acted. All of the characters were two-dimensional. It was a real amateur attempt. The movie was fundamentalist Christian propaganda. The Christian characters are holier-than-thou and they are without a shred of compassion for the skeptic or the undecided characters. The movie was a real "gotcha" for both the skeptic character and myself as a viewer, putting us in a very uncomfortable situation. I complained to the theater management and was given a free pass to another movie. I remember another movie on a similar subject, "The Rapture," starring Mimi Rogers, that was much better and professionally done. I think I'll watch "The Rapture" again. If you attend "Unidentified" and don't like it, don't say I haven't warned you.	0
How awful is it? Let me count the ways: 1) It is a bait-and-switch movie that starts out being about a UFO investigation, then turns into a high-pressure sales job for Christianity. C'mon! If the makers of this movie felt so strongly about their message, why disguise it? It annoys non-believers and pushes fence-sitters in the opposite direction. 2) It's not even a good sales pitch! If the characters in this flick asked me to go to church with them, I'd run like Hell in the opposite direction. They're scary! 3) The acting is terrible. They all behave as if they were in an educational film about etiquette in the workplace. 4) The cinematography is home-movie bad. Wait, actually its not even that good. 5) Script bad, bad, bad. All dialogue, no action. Like a tennis match, they bounce back and forth between the "talking head" close ups. 6) Direction... what direction? Oh, there must have been a director there somewhere. I challenge you to figure out where.<br /><br />Believe it or not, I have some positive comments about this movie. The editing seemed professional, but couldn't make a difference. A good edit of bad material is still a bad movie. The opening theme music was actually very good! Very scary and UFO-ish. Too bad the movie wasn't about UFOs.<br /><br />If you can't tell already, here's the bottom line. I wasted my money seeing this movie, and it made me angry. If they had not disguised what this movie was really about, I could say it was my fault.	0
ASCENDING to power in 1933, Hitler and his "National Socialist German Workers Party", which of course we all know as the Nazis, tightened their grip on the country more and more as the time went by. Early in their rough-shod trampling of the German People, they called any and all artists, newspaper men and film makers into their Nazi HQ in order that the may be informed of just what the newly declared "Third Reich" (aka 'Empire') expected of them.<br /><br />WHEN the Master Director from the German Cinema's Silent Impressionist and Expressionist era, Mr. Fritz Lang, was called in to meet with Herr Goebels; he listened attentively and said nothing. Immediately after leaving the Minister of Propaganda's office, Herr Lang went directly to the train station and took a passenger directly to Paris. Not even going back to his residence, Fritz Lang did not return to Germany (at least not until many years later. He remained in France; eventually immigrating to the United States of America.* <br /><br />MR. LANG went right to work in America; creating a variety of most enjoyable, solid and substantially literate upper echelon movies for many a year. Included in this smörgåsbord of titles is today's lucky subject, WESTERN UNION (20th Century-Fox, 1941).<br /><br />TYPICALLY a film about the Old West and Pioneer Days needed both quality as well as quantity of cast. WESTERN UNION qualified on both requisites. We are treated to a fine array of starring talent as well as a supporting cast which makes just about every minute and each scene a delight to our senses.<br /><br />HEADING up the playbill are Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore. Others prominently displayed are folks like John Carradine (playing not a vampire or other scary guy, but a Physician), George "Slim" Summerville (veteran character actor, Silent Film veteran and graduate of Mack Sennett's Keystone Comedies), Chill Wills (always dependable supporting player and former singer in "The Avalon Boys") and burly bad guy Barton MacLane. Added to this mix, we have names like Russell Hicks, Victor Killian, Minor Watson, George Chandler, Addison Richards, Irving Bacon, James Flavin, Francis Ford, Frank McGrath and Kermit Maynard (Ken Maynard's bro).<br /><br />PROMINENT in those American Indians featured are: Chief Big Tree, Chief Thundercloud and Mr. Jay Silverheels. Also featured is that one great representative of the Aboriginal Peoples of North America is that great, singularly impressive and memorable example of the Red Man, the Louisiana Native, Iron Eyes Cody (born Espera DeCorti of Sicilian immigrant parents).<br /><br />THE filming of the fine outdoor scenes was done on location in Arizona and Utah and rendered in the highest grade of Technigolour available. (There is no Monument Valley; but then, that's the Province of Mr. John Ford.) IN some respects this film is a far more amazing accomplishment than we might think; for it took a sort of pulp magazine story, adapted it to the tastes and idioms of the pre-war America of the late thirties and early forties. All of this being done by a German born Director who was only had been in Hollywood and America for the shortest length of time.<br /><br />IN its final analysis, WESTERN UNION, while it may not be the most historically accurate example of the Western Genre; we just don't care. It scores in all of the necessary categories needed for a great night at the movies! SO, who really cares about little details such as "accuracy"? <br /><br />WE give Mr. Lang and 20th Century-Fox a rating of ****!<br /><br />NOTE: * We just saw a special on PBS station WTTW, here in Chicago that was all about all of the Film Actors, Directors and other Artisans whom the Nazi rise to power caused to take refuge in America and Hollywood. (It seems that Movie Folks and Scientists were the biggest Export for Germany at this particular time; being that the Scientists who built the Atomic Bomb, as well as the future NASA people, came from Europe at this time.) <br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!!	1
Okay, I love this movie!!!!! I watched it over and over again. It is so hard to tell who the attacker is. You keep thinking it's one person, then another, then back to the first person, then another person. It is so suspense full you want to fast forward your TV to the end to see who it is.<br /><br />SUMMARY: Gail Osborne is raped and left at her home. She is in the hospital and begins to tell the story of how she was raped. It goes from her meeting her steady boyfriend, to her teacher who takes a liking to her, to her ex-boyfriend, all different stories, all suspects. But who did it?<br /><br />I love the acting, they have a lot of great talent in here. The suspense is wonderful and the settings are superb. If it comes on TV watch it. *** 1/2 stars 10/10	1
This movie was terrible. It is not something that people should have to pay to see. It looks like some Christian group made it to convert people. I don't understand why it was released to theaters and not to TV.<br /><br />It started out like an old fashioned B movie sci-fi film from the 50s, but quickly changed. About 30 minutes into the movie the characters start talking about "God" and "Do you believe in Jesus?" It quickly moves into pure religion territory.<br /><br />I thought I was going to a Sci-Fi movie. The film has poor acting; bad camera angles and is amateurish.<br /><br />AVOID IT!	0
This is a very, very odd film...one that is so odd it's best you just see it for yourself. The film begins with a jaded professor haranguing his class because the students have the audacity to not be as incredibly brilliant as he is! You can tell very quickly that this man is a total cynic--finding the value in practically nothing but sticking to his own inner sense of self-importance. Additionally, he seems tired and bored with the monotony of life.<br /><br />Later in the film, he walks into a bank robbery and manages to annoy the robbers so much that one of them shoots him in the head. Oddly, this is only half-way through the film and what followed was a very bizarre narration of the final seconds of his life. This is when the film becomes exciting because the style of the narration is just like one of this literature professor's novels--one that is intelligently written and says things the way we wish we could all say them.<br /><br />See this weird film--it's amazingly compelling and not like anything I've ever seen before.	1
This Western was set in 1861 and had to do with the creation of the first transcontinental wireless lines that were laid by Western Union. While nice guy Dean Jagger (sporting lots of hair) did his best to get this done, there was a bad guy just waiting to undo this for his own selfish reasons. So, it's up to either Randolph Scott or Robert Young to save the day.<br /><br />This is certainly one of the better 1940s Westerns I have seen and it nearly garnered an 8--it was that good. However, for the life of me, I have no idea why Fritz Lang was assigned to direct this film--after all, he knew nothing about Westerns. His forte was drama--and I guess this movie is a drama of sorts--just set in the old West. Strange, yes, but it seemed to work out okay, though I wonder how this great German director felt about being given this job.<br /><br />As for the rest of the film, it's exceptional--with vivid color, great location shooting and very good acting. As usual, Randolph Scott put in another relaxed and realistic performance. I was surprised, though, with Robert Young being also cast in the film, but it was a good casting decision--he was supposed to be a Harvard-educated Easterner. When I saw Barton MacLane was also in the film, I pretty much assumed he'd be the "baddie" and my thoughts were well founded, since he made a career out of playing jerks! As for the script, it seemed pretty ordinary for the most part, but the final showdown between Scott and Barton MacLane was a lot better than I'd hoped--making this movie ending on a very high note.	1
Calling this a "Sunday School" movie might be generous, because, even as a Christian, I found the religious message so one-dimensional that I wouldn't want to see it at my church. The message is, "Read your Bible, go to church and sign up for fire insurance, so you won't get left behind at the rapture." There was no love. I guess when you get right down to it, I don't believe in the god portrayed in this film. The guy who was supposed to have all of the spiritual answers came across like Count Dracula.<br /><br />Aside from the spiritual/religious element, the script was tedious--saying the same thing over and over. That might have been to make up for some of the acting, which was unable to deliver a convincing line the first time, so they just said the same thing over and over.<br /><br />I did enjoy the final scenes. I thought it made a point without hitting someone over the head or stooping to a Sunday School formula. The movie wasn't all bad, just most of it.<br /><br />I am in favor of more clean movies that are well-done and that present truth in a non-preachy way. This wasn't one of those, I am sorry to say. I took my family to this film, wanting to support that kind of movie. Now I'd like my money back.	0
Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.<br /><br />Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.<br /><br />So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.	0
WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress. This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of great character actors help keep the large production moving forward.	1
One of the worst films I have ever seen! After watching it i walk out like, what happened? I am confused to this day, can someone explain that movie to me please? both the acting and picture quality are so bad ,you'll think you're watching someone's school project made with a home camcorder. First,I can not believe that how some people could give 10 star to this movie.Because,.it's unbelievably bad movie! This movie isn't scary at all! There is even no Typical horror clichés,too. The plot and acting of This movie was terrible. It's not,fantastic,surrealistic or horror,It's just hideously bad Turkish feature film.And finally there were a lot of unnecessary scenes and unnecessary characters. When I watch 'Gomeda' I fell into so hopeless,so sad for young Turkish movie maker.Please,please don't make 'cinema' like this!	0
This is a sort of hidden gem. It has little to no promotion, no fanfare, no classic status, and it deserves all of the above! One of the great directors of cinema, Fritz Lang, has created a real gem in this excellent western. A fine cast led by Randolph Scott (in probably one of his greatest performances), the always sturdy Dean Jagger, Robert Young as a surprisingly accomplished dude plus many veteran character actors: Chill Wills, Slim Summerville, John Carradine, Barton MacLane and others in an exciting Zane Grey story of the laying of the Western Union cable across country. It has tense drama, sprinklings of humor and great effects. It's reminiscent of DeMille in ways and yet Fritz Lang leaves his own stamp on it. At very least this is a damned good western!	1
This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.	0
Here's another of the 1940's westerns that I watch whenever it comes on TCM or FMC, because although it may be flawed historically, it is extremely entertaining and well acted, plus it's got Randolph Scott, my favorite actor second only to Gary Cooper-Well, OK, fourth behind COOP, Charlton Heston, and Gregory Peck. But the film itself, to me anyway, is reasonably historically accurate and as I said before, well acted and "flows" very well-I bet I've seen it 50 or 60 times, and enjoy each viewing more than the one before. I have it on tape from TCM but would buy it in a minute if it ever came out on DVD. See it if you haven't- I guarantee you'll like it!	1
Lang does Hawks as well as Hawks does in the first part of this extraordinary Western, before settling down into typical deterministic, dark and guilt-haunted Lang for the finale.<br /><br />This is one of those films that shows its greatness almost instantly but at the same time very subtly. Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) is on horseback and being pursued, we know not why -- he stumbles on wounded Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger) and decides to take his gun and horse, but discovering that Creighton is in a bad way, decides to fix him up first. This is conveyed mostly through facial expressions and very brief, clipped dialog - in 2 minutes we know that Shaw is an outlaw, but basically a good guy. Shaw ends up helping Creighton on his way to civilization, then disappears.<br /><br />Cut to a few weeks or months later, with Creighton on the mend and in charge of an expedition to lay telegraph wire going west from Omaha. He hires Shaw as a scout, who tries to leave when he finds out that Creighton is in charge; but Creighton wants him anyway, repaying a debt and sensing something quality. Also hired is a tenderfoot, son of a benefactor of the project, but atypically the Easterner Richard Blake (Robert Young) is quite competent as he shows right away in an amusing but exciting bronco-busting sequence. Both of the hires vie for Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore) who - again not typically - seems quite as able to take care of herself as any man. The camaraderie between the three men, the comedic elements involving an unwilling cook and various rough and tumble types, and the wonderfully played light romantic elements dominate the first third of the film and reminded me more of Howard Hawks' "Red River" or "Only Angels Have Wings" than most Lang - but they are so well played and the action progresses so naturally that it doesn't matter, and doesn't alter our pleasure - if it does perhaps change our expectations - as the more usual Langian themes of the haunted past, dark secrets and the immense pull of the easier, destructive and evil ways come to dominate the later part of the film. Shaw's old pals come back to haunt him as the the wagon train and its wires move westward; attacks mount on the crew, and Shaw has to wrestle with what, if anything, he is to tell Creighton about his tortured relationship with Jack Slade (Barton MacLane), leader of the outlaws.<br /><br />Beautifully shot in early Technicolor and moving fairly seamlessly from sound stages to western locations, this is for my money easily Lang's best western and one of his very best films, conveying as potently as any of his films the tragic inability of men to escape their pasts and build a new future. Scott is as good as I've seen him, showing more with a flick of an eye than a lot of actors can do in a paragraph of dialog, and the rest of the cast is uniformly fine. The inevitable showdown between Shaw's past criminal life and his potential future is extraordinary, and a surprise even for a longtime Lang devotee such as myself; and even in 1941 it seems there was no place more fraught with meaning on the margins of civilization than the barbershop and the dusty street outside. You can get a shave, you can feel like a new man, but you can't really ever be one as long as the old ties are still holding you back.<br /><br />Genius.	1
I gave this a 3 out of a possible 10 stars.<br /><br />Unless you like wasting your time watching an anorexic actress, in this film it's Carly Pope, behaving like a ditz, don't bother.<br /><br />Carly Pope plays Sara Novak, a young college student, who becomes intrigued with a game of riddles, that leads her down into subway tunnels underneath the city - a dangerous thing for even a well-armed man to go in alone.<br /><br />There are various intrigues in the film -- a weirdo classmate who is apparently stalking Sara, a cynical shopkeeper who runs some kind of offbeat hole-in-the-wall establishment that appears to be located in the back alley of a ghetto, a nerdish dim-wit that hangs around the cynic's shop, and a woman named Emily Gray, who is back in prison.<br /><br />Sara's father is a lawyer who is handling Emily Gray's case. <br /><br />A few years back, Emily Gray attempted to drown a 12 year old boy. Emily was put in a mental hospital for 5 years, and for some cockeyed reason they let her out again, even though it is obvious she is still dangerously deranged.<br /><br />The only explanation Emily has ever given for her crime is: I never sinned.<br /><br />It's all part of the design.<br /><br />Well, my friend, don't expect to ever get any better explanation than that, because you won't.	0
One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made.	1
If Western Union isn't exactly the real story of the construction of the Transcontinental Telegraph, it certainly does capture the spirit and dedication of the people involved with the project.<br /><br />Dean Jagger is the man in charge and one fine day he's thrown from a horse and sustains some fractured ribs. An outlaw on the run, Randolph Scott, finds Jagger and is ready to steal his horse, but changes his mind and brings Jagger to help. Later on he's hired by Western Union and works for Jagger.<br /><br />Jagger also hires a young easterner played by Robert Young who's an engineer. Young is doing one of his few loan out films away from MGM for 20th Century Fox. Both Young and Scott become friends, but rivals for Jagger's sister Virginia Gilmore.<br /><br />Western Union has plenty of action, enough to satisfy any western fans. The telegraph crew has to deal with outlaws, Indians, and your garden variety labor troubles.<br /><br />Slim Summerville as the timid cook and Victor Killian as the frontier character assigned to guard him have some of the funniest scenes. They both provide some good comic relief. <br /><br />Fritz Lang got good performances from his cast and kept the film moving briskly along. Western Union is solid western entertainment.	1
I watched Gomeda on movie theater at my city. My friend took away me and I was really curious what would be it looked like. Well, I must say This movie was not a horror,may be we can say that is 'Fantsastic experimentation'...OK here I go anyway... But there was a lot of shooting,acting,dramatic,theatrical and storytelling problems.I can understand because of director is very young and Gomeda is his first feature film.OK Directing of this film was not pretty bad,I see.Unfortunately, due to the restraints placed on the film by its extremely low budget, the visuals are often as murky as the storyline.And there is no powerful Gothic scenes.As a horror movie it really fails, no scares at all and it is quite muddled and boring. Some people say 'Gomeda' is an art movie, but I could not see a laughable,terrible and breoken off art movie like that.So, how can we say it is an art movie!Just funny!	0
This movie changed my life! Hogan's performance was nothing short of incredible, and I still haven't recovered from his exclusion from the 1990 Oscar nominations. And as brightly as the Hulkster shines in this movie, you can't discount the brilliant writing and direction that vaults this masterpiece in to the highest strata of achievement in film. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what your doing right now and get yourself a copy. I guarantee it will blow your mind. And if you don't like it, then I just have one question for you.... Watcha gonna do when the 24 inch pythons and Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!	0
... in search of the cheesiest "so bad it's good" movie, I've repeatedly laughed at the first fifteen minutes of various films, only to be left disappointed and bored at the end. Not this time!!! My eyes teared up, my belly and my cheeks ached from laughing so hard throughout the movie. Sure, Hulk Hogan is a subpar actor and the plot is utterly predictable, but everyone dives into this movie knowing all this - all anyone wants to see when renting this is Hogan breaking out a can of whoopass, with a bunch of "YEAH BROTHER"s and "WHATCHUGONNADO"s flying from his infamously goateed mouth. And while the Hulkster on the screen pales a bit in comparison to the Hulkster in the ring, seekers of the ultimate cheese will certainly not be disappointed by this backhand gem of a flick. A laugh riot.	0
I first saw this film in the theater way back in the 40s when I was a kid and always remembered the ending. There is nothing like the first impression but some movies are always a treat each time they are viewed. Something just resonates with them. This is one of those films and I agree with another reviewer who said Fritz Lang should have directed more westerns. To add to it I have always liked Randolph Scott and Robert Young. In fact, Robert Young stars in what I consider my favorite movie if I have to name just one, not an easy thing to do. That film is Northwest Passage. It led me to the superb historical novels of Kenneth Roberts. Western Union likewise led me to reading Zane Grey's novel which, in this case turned out to be one of those rare cases where I like the movie better than the novel. Not that Grey's novel is a bad one; I just like the movie story better. The movie in no way resembles the novel. It is a completely different tale, one of the biggest departures from a book I have seen.<br /><br />I can't add much to the other reviews except to say I agree with many of them. I, too, wish it would be released on DVD. "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott happened to the best of me."	1
Hulk Hogan and Zeus are horrible wrestlers and horrible actors. Hogan for some reason was popular enough to get a movie deal I'll never know why. If not for vince Mcmahon's money this stupid film would have never been made. Maybe someday someone will make a good movie about pro wrestling. No Holds Barred is not that movie.	0
Fritz Lang directed two great westerns: "Western Union" and "The Return of Frank James". The Frank James movie equals "Jesse James". "Western Union" is one of Randolph Scott's great westerns. I have never seen Robert Young in a western before; he is terrific as the telegraph employee. This is the only movie I can think of that is about the telegraph company opening up in the west. It is a high-geared story about the telegraph in the west, a triangle love story, and about loyalty. <br /><br />The supporting cast is superb. Dean Jagger, who made a few westerns, plays the telegraph manager. Virginia Gilmore, who plays Mr. Jagger's sister, is the love interest in the movie. Ms. Gilmore had a short career in movies. She quit films in 1952 and became a drama coach. She is primarily known as the first Mrs. Yul Brynner. It is great to see Slim Summerville in a movie with Mr. Scott again. They were in two other great movies: "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" and "Jesse James".	1
Hulk Hogan plays Rip a professional wrestler who has a big heart but is pushed to the limit when his girlfriend(Joan Severence) is kidnapped by thugs who are forcing him to take on another wrestler(Tiny Lister Jr.)Bottom of the barrel actioner is such a failure that even Hogan looks ashamed to be in it, and with the evidence portrayed, he should be.	0
A thinly veiled attempt to push Hulkamania to the film going non-wrestling fan. What could be worse than Hogan in the movies? Bad actors in the wrestling ring, and this film produced both, as Tiny Lester made his way to the WWE that summer in the mother of all promotional blunders. See the dictionary under Oops. As a card carrying member of the stupid kids of the world paid to see this in theaters and when I came out I immediately checked into H.A. - Hulkamaniacs Annoynimous. I am proud to say I have been off the Hulk for 17 years now and have never had a craving since. Since this was made to bring in more fans to the juggernaut that was the WWE in Hogans hey day one has to wonder if there weren't more fans like me who turned to other past times that did not poison ones mind like this offense to celluloid did, such as huffing gas or Russian Roulette.	0
No Holds Barred is that movie that when you were nine or ten was the coolest movie this side of arnold schwarzenegger. But then when you grow up and watch it you feel embarrassed that you were so gullible to have liked it. You feel cheated, embarrassed, and stupid. If you have a little brother and you show him this and he tells you it's gay, give him a high five and take him to the strip bar for his eleventh birthday.	0
Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should of directed some more westerns.	1
Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and<br /><br />raped in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film<br /><br />then flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is<br /><br />harassed by a stranger.<br /><br />Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson and<br /><br />Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious parents,<br /><br />laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home wringing<br /><br />hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated<br /><br />entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in<br /><br />"Three Days of the Condor."<br /><br />Beller, an amateur photographer, begins getting threatening notes<br /><br />stuffed in her locker at school. The film makers wisely give us a<br /><br />whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend, Mattson's<br /><br />boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about that<br /><br />overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be a<br /><br />little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist was<br /><br />because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture of<br /><br />the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that<br /><br />regard.<br /><br />Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins getting<br /><br />harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie then<br /><br />heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up<br /><br />a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student.<br /><br />Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from<br /><br />Beller about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that<br /><br />day and age.<br /><br />The suspense here is very real, without going over the top into<br /><br />scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and<br /><br />Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The<br /><br />film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small role,<br /><br />and everyone is professional.<br /><br />This was made in 1978, and it shows. I am sure no one had any<br /><br />idea that this would be reviewed in 2001 by an overcritical horror<br /><br />movie lover who needs to get to bed and be up early in the<br /><br />morning, but some of the attitudes here are embarassing. The<br /><br />teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to explain what<br /><br />exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school teacher said<br /><br />that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its own.<br /><br />After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as warrants<br /><br />are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case because<br /><br />Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by whom<br /><br />she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with<br /><br />modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously<br /><br />knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is<br /><br />an act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch<br /><br />the attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The<br /><br />problem is the anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an<br /><br />afterthought. Before that, we have a tight little suspenser that has<br /><br />real honest to God characterization. After the rape, everything<br /><br />changes, filmwise, and not for the better.<br /><br />I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who could forget<br /><br />her revealing role in "The Betsy"), but she has not done anything in<br /><br />almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good way<br /><br />back then.<br /><br />I will recommend "Are You in the House Alone?!" based on the<br /><br />acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the first two-thirds of<br /><br />the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV high school life,<br /><br />this is your cup of Tab.<br /><br />This is unrated but contains physical violence, some sexual<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations.	1
While escaping from a heist of a bank, the outlaw Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) helps Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), the chief-engineer of the Western Union that is surveying the Wild West and had had an accident with a horse. In 1861, Vance regenerates and is hired to work for the Western Union with the team that is installing the poles and cable from Omaha to Salt Lake City. Vance and the engineer from Harvard Richard Blake (Robert Young) flirt with the gorgeous Edward's sister Sue Creighton (Virginia Gilmore) and she chooses Vance. However, his past haunts him when the outlaw Jack Slade (Barton MacLane) steals the Western Union cattle disguised of Indians.<br /><br />"Western Union" is a good but predictable western directed by Fritz Lang. The story shows the difficulties of the brave and idealistic men responsible for installing the telegraph through the West, facing thieves and Indians. The entertaining story has action, drama, romance and funny situations, but with the exception of the identity of Jack Slade, there is no surprise in the story. Randolph Scott gives another magnificent performance with a great cast. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Os Conquistadores" ("The Conquerors")	1
I doubt if the real story of the development of Western Union would ever have gained a real audience. Instead of talking about the building of the telegraph system out west, it was the story of board rooms, dominated by one of the most interesting (and disliked) of the great "Robber Barons": Jay Gould. Gould picked up the struggling company and turned it into a communication giant - and part of his attempt at a national railway system to rival Vanderbilt's. But this, while interesting, is not as exciting as the story of the laying of the telegraph lines themselves. At least, that is how audiences would see it. Jay Gould died in 1892. Had he lived into the modern era, and invested in Hollywood, he probably would have agreed to that assessment too.<br /><br />The film deals with how the laying of the telegraph system is endangered by Indians, spurred on by one Jack Slade (Barton MacLane). Slade, a desperado, is not happy with the development of a communication system that will certainly put a crimp in his abilities to evade the police in the territories. He is confronted by the man in charge of the laying of the telegraph wires, Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), Creighton's associate Richard Blake (Robert Young), and a quasi-lawman Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott), who is Slade's brother. Blake, an Easterner with little understanding of the West, is romancing Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore), but finds it hard to get used to his new surroundings. But he does become a close friend of Shaw, especially in trying to confront Slade.<br /><br />Slade was a real Western criminal, by the way, and the subject of a section of Mark Twain's ROUGHING IT. He was hanged in the 1870s. But he did not have any involvement in stirring up Indians against railroads or telegraph companies. However, MacLane makes him a memorably evil, and totally vicious type. His killing of one of the major characters is done suddenly and from behind - and he views the corpse as though he has just got rid of an annoyance. But Lang is responsible for that, as well as other touches. Look at the sequence with Chill Wills, where he is on a telegraph pole repairing it. He spits tobacco juice several times while talking to Young, who gets a little splattered. Then there is an Indian attack which we watch from the ground level. At the conclusion, Young suddenly gets splattered again, but it's not brown but red that covers him. He looks up at the pole's top, and there is Wills with an Indian arrow through him.<br /><br />It is an exciting film to watch, and well worth catching.	1
I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!<br /><br />Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?<br /><br />For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do.	0
I worked on this atrocity ten years ago. Luckily for me, no one knows it because I didn't make the final cut. And when I saw the movie in the theaters, I was glad! My agents were driven nuts by the (apparently first-time) filmmakers, rewriting the script daily and changing their arrangements with the agencies just as often. They later told me that, once back in California (we shot in Atlanta), these "professionals" had 4 1/2 hours worth of footage! Even edited down to 90 minutes, it's at least twice as long as it needs to be. I found Hulk Hogan surprisingly charming, but otherwise -- what a waste of film!	0
No Holds Barred is a movie that should in no way ever be taken seriously. It sucks hardcore as a serious movie. Look at it more in the way that you should Plan 9 From Outer Space. They are one in the same in that they are both so bad they are funny. The funny moments in No Holds Barred are usually the ones that aren't supposed to be. When Rip (played by Hulk Hogan as only he can play them) grabs the limo driver out of the front after his first meeting with Brell (Kurt Fuller) hilarity ensues and it is one part of the movie that every person should see. It might be the funniest scene ever, I swear.<br /><br />Anyway, how someone thought this movie would make money I'll never know and that person should probably be beaten into submission. I hope they at least got fired. This movie earns a 1 out of 5 on my scale and that one is just for the unintentionally funny parts.	0
"Western Union" is something of a forgotten classic western! Perhaps the reason for this lies in the fact of its unavailability on DVD in the United States. However, all is not lost as it has now appeared on Region 2 in England. This - being a blessing in some ways - is not only incongruous but totally ironic when one considers that a movie depicting the founding and establishment of such a uniquely American organization as The Western Union Telegraph Company is without a Region 1 release. It beggars belief! It simply doesn't make sense!<br /><br />Produced by Fox in 1941 "Western Union" was directed by Fritz Lang. This was only the second occasion the great German director undertook to direct a western! He had done an excellent job the year before with Fox's "The Return Of Frank James" and would have only one more western outing in 1952 with the splendid "Rancho Notorious". Lang was no Ford or Hawks but with "Western Union" he turned in a fine solid western that holds up very well. Beautifully photographed in early three strip Technicolor by Edward Cronjager it boasted a good cast headed by Robert Young, Randolph Scott and Dean Jagger. The female lead is taken by Virginia Gilmore who really has little to do in the picture. An actress who never made anything of her career. Her presence here is merely cosmetic.<br /><br />It is curious that Robert Young has top billing over Scott! It is clearly Scott's picture from the very beginning when we first see him in the film's terrific opening scene being chased by a posse across the plains. Young doesn't have much to do throughout the movie and seems out of place in a western. He just looks plain silly going up against Barton McLane in a gunfight! An actor who never really distinguished himself - except perhaps with "Crossfire" (1947)- Young appeared in a string of forgettable romantic comedies in the forties and fifties culminating with his greatest success when for seven years he was TV's "Marcus Welby MD" in the seventies. He died in 1998 at the age of 91.<br /><br />"Western Union" recounts the connection by telegraph wire of Omaha and Salt Lake City. Scott plays a reformed outlaw hired by Western Union boss Dean Jagger to protect the line from marauding Sioux and to also take on McLane and his gang who are trying to destroy the line for their own devious ends. Robert Young is the young engineer from back east who joins the company and vies with Scott for the affections of Miss Gilmore. Some comic relief is provided by - and irritatingly so some would say - by Slim Summerville and John Carradine turns up in a meager role as the company doctor.<br /><br />Altogether though a spanking good western, albeit on Region 2, but in sparkling good quality that fans will be delighted with. My only crib is that there are no extras, not even a trailer and that terrible cover with those dull graphics. UGH!<br /><br />Footnote: Interestingly the associate producer on "Western Union" was Harry Joe Brown who later with Randolph Scott would create a partnership that would produce some of Scott's finest westerns in the fifties.	1
He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless?	0
I saw this years ago, and it's entertaining, but not profound. The basic story is of a young man who dreams of Midian, though he's not sure where it is or even if it really exists.<br /><br />Spoilers Follow: He finally visits it, gets transformed to a Nightbreed creature by being bitten by another one. Then, he has to help the other members of the Nightbreed because they're being attacked by Canadians. (Save for the accents, they all act like Good Ol' Boys. Not much in tune with the Canadian psyche, eh?) Someone observed for "monsters" or "Nightbreed," substitute "Jews," and for the Canadians/humans, substitute, "Nazis," and you're supposed to get an insight into the struggle by the monsters versus the humans. Well, maybe.<br /><br />One major objection I had was that while the underground city was interesting, it was rather ramshackle and, frankly, dirty. This must be a convention for movies with underground settlements. One would think that if the monsters were the good guys, some would have at least a little sense of decor.<br /><br />The storyline is a tad thin, but that's to introduce characters. But it's entertaining enough for a repeat view.	1
Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film.<br /><br />Sadly the lack of a well known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity.<br /><br />Perhaps also the homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the white audience the film decries.<br /><br />None the less the film is a treasure of the monster movie/superhero genre.<br /><br />A sequel featuring Highlander style flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting. <br /><br />Another idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus.	1
Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen. Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would have other people.	1
Ignoring Rocky 3, this is easily Hulk Hogan's best film, and it still rates as one of the worst films ever. Hulk Hogan essentially plays Hulk Hogan, bringing his wrestling buddies in for a film, with all the cliches to go along with it - the crooked promoter, the unstoppable monster, the injured kid, the sexy woman and... "dookie".	0
Delivers great acting and greater Special Effects. Stars David Cronenberg, one of my personal favorites, as Decker. It's special effects on the monsters were so good, you thought they might be really deformed. Clive Barker, however demented, scored a perfect 10 on my list.	1
Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about perspective.<br /><br />Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential to become part of that world.<br /><br />Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed congregate and live underground. <br /><br />Sheffer has also left a girl friend, Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind. <br /><br />Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone, the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them.<br /><br />Your sympathies are definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action.<br /><br />Clive Barker's been an out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human because they're taught that way.<br /><br />Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures.	1
Clive Barker of Hellraiser fame has written and produced a fantasy horror film that is funny and exciting.<br /><br />The make-up done by Bob Keen and Geoffrey Portass was fantastic. It took quite an imagination to come up with these mutants that lived underground. It was really a treat to see the quality of work.<br /><br />It wasn't particularly horrible, as the worst creature was actually a human serial killer.<br /><br />I just saw Craig Sheffer in Shadow of Doubt the other day and he did a good job in this film also. Nothing spectacular, but fair. This was only Anne Bobby's third film, and she was good also.<br /><br />The ending was spectacular and the rednecks got their just desserts, as did David Cronenberg. Ha!	1
In 1989 here in NZ wrestling was somewhat of a mega-hype phenom, and who was steering starship at the pinnacle was the orange goblin himself, HULK HOGAN (one of my uber-heroes at this time), so it seems obvious to me now why I adored this movie in 1989-90 when it came out here. HULK HOGAN A.K.A Terry Bollea is a shockingly bad actor and Zeus A.K.A Tiny Lister is worse!!! The story line follows a standard WWE (then WWF) circa 88-91 story line culminating in the standard good guy beat down, hulk up and then get beaten down again story line only to follow that the good guy calls on all his inner strength( gained from eating vitamins, saying prayers etc etc ) to mount the epic come back..... Pretty standard formula here. Worth watching if only for reminiscing your youth!!!!	0
This movie is masterly directed by Clive barker, he really knows how to establish a rapport between the audience and the characters. I think there is a sequel missing for this one, Barker should have dedicated to the sequel for this movie instead of doing the boring Lord of illusions, that is one I think was a real garbage. But I also think that because of this and because of the lack of the sequel NBreed has become a dark cult classic of horror films.	1
An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10.	1
The film 'Nightbreed' is one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Overall, I'm not a big fan of horror films, but there is something about this film that is more atmospheric and different from any other horror film I have ever seen. Many horror films i've seen i've enjoyed watching, however, as they are based on horror, I know that the stories are unreal, as they are fictional, therefore I can't take them all seriously. Nightbeed, on the other hand, is a unique horror Genre as it has a feel of realism that i've seen in very few other horror films.<br /><br />This films story on how a man gets murdered and ends up living with the undead in an underground cemetery shelter with undead monsters is the kind of story a person would get from a dreaming Nightmare as its a very unique and original storyline. Most horror films i've seen are all quite fake, but because Nightbreed was so incredibly sophisticated and geniously directed with superb acting, especially by Craig sheffer (Aaron Boone) amazing special effects, great lighting and fantastic dialogue, I found this film to have a sense of depth and maturity with no silly fake horror parody, whatsoever, that many other horror films have. Nightbreed, as well as being horror has elements of thriller, romance and action all rapped in one. If you haven't seen this film, I recommend you watch it, as I rate it a 10/10.	1
Being a wrestling fan, movies about wrestling generally suck (Backyard Dogs, Bodyslam, Jesse Ventura story) but this one isn't the worst I've ever seen. Yes its bad but its better than some of the others I've mentioned.<br /><br />Hulk Hogan stars as basically himself and for some reason, a rival network wants to beat him up because he doesn't want to be on that network. Let me explain it so everyone can understand....picture USA Network having Rip...and TNT will go to any lengths to get him.<br /><br />Does this make sense...no? Well don't feel bad because it doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to have a legit ex con have a REAL fight with Rip at the end of the movie.<br /><br />None of this movie makes much sense but compared to other wrestling movies and later Hogan films its not so bad.<br /><br />4 out of 10	0
I experienced Nightbreed for the first time on television a year ago and i was pleasantly surprised with the results.<br /><br />Clive Barker is said to have revitalised horror with Hellraiser but this is a film that effectively stalled his cinema career somewhat. What an unfortunate thing to happen because, like the inhabitants of Midian, this film seems to be misunderstood.<br /><br />Barker has created a cross-breed of genre staples in this story - it begins as a traditional horror film but soon becomes a fable regarding mans inhumanity to man. Evoking sympathy for the devil is tough at the best of times but when the characters are as visually demonic as they are in this film it becomes nigh on impossible (cue the child!). The practically Klan-like human insurgence (pitchforks and holy wrath!) at the films conclusion becomes doubly upsetting in the face of what has gone before. As a parable of ethnic tension and white supremacy this film can be quite evocative.<br /><br />I pity those who will not see the film from this angle and think of it as Barker's fantastical indulgence gone too far. We have a genuine forgotten gem here and the sooner the studio and Mr Barker make nice and devote some time to it - the better.	1
Hulk Hogan stars as a champion wrestler (A real acting stretch...) named Rip, who is forced to defend his honor, his title and his girlfriend from a greedy corporation that wanted him to sign for their network (Because wrestling sells!) however when Rip declines, the network gets a circuit fighting championship called (and i'm totally serious) "Battle of the tough guys" who's champion Zeus (Played by Tiny Lister Jr) maybe the deadliest man alive. Rip refuses to fight, until his brother is attacked and put in a hospital. No Holds Barred is pretty much what I expected from Vince McMahon production starring the least versatile actor in the action genre (Hogan) it is basically lots of unintentional humor, tons of awkward sequences, a couple okay action sequences and tons of stupidity. In other words it's not unlike wrestling itself, so I give it a fair rating mainly because anyone renting this knows what they're getting. The movie is cheap but well made enough for what it is and really wrestling fans will probably enjoy this. I myself found this to be ultimately hilarious. They're are moments of such absurdity that you only chuckle to yourself. (Such as the way Hogan jumps 20 feet in the air after being stuck in a limo, how he forces a guy to crap himself and of course the way Hogan recites from his cuecard. (I.E:"I'm not going to be around when this check clears!") No Holds Barred is a lot of fun, true, though it's mainly because of how ridiculous it is. Fans of camp should really enjoy this clever clinker.<br /><br />* * out of 4-(Fair)	0
A new wrestling show paves way for the most feared wrestler ever imaginable, the giant Zeus. Network President Brell does everything in his power to draw WWF champion Rip into the squared circle to face off against Zeus for the championship of the 'Battle of the Tough Guys'. But Zeus is unlike any competitor Rip has ever faced.<br /><br />Normally I would give Hogan some leeway as a wrestler crossing over into a movie role, however this film didn't ask the Hulkster to make very much of a stretch, it simply asked Hogan to play himself, which he failed at miserably. 'Tiny' Lister made a good effort as the mighty Zeus, but even his work left the film lacking something, namely acting!<br /><br />Watch this movie, if you so desire, with a grain of salt and a sense of humor, otherwise you will probably have to turn it off a little over ten minutes in.	0
Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.<br /><br />A poor film on par with the greats like "Gymkata" and "The Pumaman," "No Holds Barred" is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people "professionals" at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?<br /><br />Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an "R." Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an "R," well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.<br /><br />Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled "Battle of the Tough Guys." Marketing genius, this guy.<br /><br />From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase "What's that smell?" "DOOKIE!" "Dookie?"<br /><br />A classic for all time.	0
For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!	1
I really should give this stinker more credit that 1 star, because the film has so many eye-rolling lines that it's almost worth the price of the rental. <br /><br />The acting, if you want to call it that, is so stilted and contrived that it makes Ed Wood's actors appear life like. "Sammy," the lone black character, must be Mimi's husband in real life because he appears in her other films, but he has zero acting ability. His lines are priceless due to his absurd delivery, though I suspect the intention was to create a sympathetic character. His old man make up in her other turkey ("Pushed To The Limit") is no-budget, junior high school quality, with cotton ball eyebrows and white spray painted hair.<br /><br />I cannot fathom anyone actually buying this video, unless people like to throw their own Mystery Science Theater parties and need a copy of something like this on hand. It really is Beyond Fear-- it's actually Beyond Funny.	0
This is Clive Barker's masterpiece in my opinion. The movie has a great storyline and some amazing make-up and effects. The one thing I would love to see happen is a sequel. The movie was set up for a sequel and with improved technology the second movie could be incredible. David Cronenberg must appear in a sequel as well as Craig Sheffer. But this particular movie was a great original, creative and entertaining idea and I could watch it over and over again. Cronenberg was perfect in this movie and Sheffer added an interesting spice to the film.	1
ALERT: This review contains major SPOILERS. Do not read on if you plan to see this film.<br /><br />Judging from the amount of votes this got (my vote was the fifth one) very few people know or care who Mimi Lesseos is. Well, back in the late 1980s, professional wrestling was pretty decent. An all-woman's federation called the Ladies Professional Wrestling Association opened. It was a great league, and Mimi Lesseos was one of the names on the roster. I always thought she was one of the best people the LPWA had in terms of ring skill and acting ability. Unfortunately, the LPWA closed down in the early 90s, so it only seemed natural for someone with as much talent as Mimi to start an acting career, right? But surely there was an alternative to stuff like this? This movie is really bad. As it was going along, I kept comparing it to an underrated movie called `Survivor Quest,' only this film lacks everything that made `Survivor Quest' enjoyable.<br /><br />As I started the tape, I went to fast forward through the preview to get to the meat of the tape. At first, I wasn't paying much attention, but then I realized that the preview was for a movie starring Mimi Lesseos. `Oh,' I thought, `here's another movie featuring Mimi to look for.' But as the preview dragged on, I became aware that is was a preview for….'Beyond Fear!' You know you're in trouble when the only preview at the beginning features the movie you are about to watch! The plot of this thing is pretty standard. Lesseos plays an ex-kickboxer that is living with the guilt of injuring an opponent/friend, so she focuses herself on her second career which she shares with her friend Sammy: being a wilderness guide. On this particular occasion, she gets a troop of three couples. Two of the couples are just there to take up space. You think that one couple, a Caucasian husband and a Korean wife, will be explored, as an issue appears between them halfway through the film, but it is ignored in favor of repeated jokes about bears in the woods, which consistently scares the Korean wife. The joke is funny the first time you hear it, but it certainly isn't by the ninth time they do it. The third couple is just painful to watch: it consists of Mr. and Mrs. Page. They trade insults back and forth, and Mr. Page uses his video camera for the art of voyeurism when he's not busy playing cruel jokes on his portly wife….just like your typical American couple! Before the hike, Mr. Page is spying on two stupid guys and their prostitute. One of them accidentally kills the prostitute and finds out Mr. Page taped it. So begins the peril, as the two guys track the group on their trip, and we wait….and wait….and wait….and wait for them to finally do something. When they do, it's a fiasco.<br /><br />You can't blame the cast. They try as hard as they can with the material they have to work with. The main culprit is director Robert F. Lyons, who needs to go back to playing bit parts and stay out of the director's chair. Lyons starts and stops scenes in such a sloppy, sudden matter that you start to think he was suffering from dyspepsia throughout the entire shoot. There's even one incompetent moment when a broad daylight scene with the thugs is slipped between some nighttime scenes. Then there is the sound department. The music and background noise completely overpower the dialogue so that you have to move your ear right next to your television's speaker. Don't bump your head on the screen! It isn't worth it to hear the poorly written lines. Speaking of poor writing, Lesseos gets some of the credit there as co-writer. The few interesting developments between characters are often abandoned for shots of the thugs or bad practical jokes. Early on, Lesseos knocks out a thug with a switchblade knife, so not once do you think they are in any danger from the two stupid thugs. When the crooks finally get their rear ends kicked by Lesseos in a well done and long fight, our cast all have a huge laugh together, despite the fact that one of them has been shot and is bleeding everywhere. Yes, everyone is happy in the end. Everyone except the poor souls witnessing the film, wishing for the good old glory days when Mimi performed in the wrestling ring. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10	0
This formulaic film (hero's girlfriend marries the villain) just didn't move along fast enough given some of the circumstances of the story. Scott seems too old in this one, and too many times his character turns away from decisive action, deflating the scenes. He responds to the deaths of some of his hands weakly; he escapes from Knox's gang by hiding in a full rain barrel; his escape to the high country and pursuit by John Russell seem superfluous, as does much of the film. The plot could have been tightened. <br /><br />High points of the film: seeing "Tennessee" Ernie Ford without a mustache singing "Man in the Saddle"; Alfonso Bedoya's too brief scenes as a cook; the color photography of the high country, and the fight scene there with John Russell.	0
By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.	0
Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, "Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there."<br /><br />Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.	0
I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't. Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things could have been changed to make it better.<br /><br />That having been said I love this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't. <br /><br />Barker was at a Con I went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details.<br /><br />I know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the 'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real' fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to live. <br /><br />Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That was a lovely little detail I thought.<br /><br />Basically what I want to say is that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand or fear.	1
This movie is a perfect example of Barkers cinematic gifts to the horror/ monster genre. I thought this movie did a great job of keeping the feel and look of the novella and comic books (or actually, the comics may have come second, I forget). This movie was made for Barker fans. It helps to have read the book beforehand, but isn't that important if you can follow a film. I saw to anyone who is on the fence about this film, read the book, then re-watch the film. You might find a new respect for the movie. I came to this movie a big fan of Barker already, and having read the book prior, loved the film instantly. There are great cameos, makeup, writing, directing, etc in this film. This movie does something that most monster/ horror movies fail miserably at, show the monsters. They are there in full color, not hidden in shadows, and taking most of the screen time. Unlike other films that use quick cuts or trick lighting to hide the creature, this movie celebrates the grotesque, and casts them into the forefront as the good guy. Two thumbs up Clive. We're waiting for the Thief of Always :)	1
Over the GW is a near failure of a debut feature, and not because it's not without trying...Actually, it is. It's a shamble all the more because it's writer/director/technical everyman Nick Gaglia went through the same rehab cult that he depicts in the film. Sometimes a first time filmmaker, full of the vigor that comes with getting a thumbs up or two from fellow film students, goes headlong into style that is way too disjointed, unsure, and dramatically frustrating that the personal side of the story, the extremely personal side, gets smudged in the purpose of telling a good story. Gaglia, who was 13 when put into a horrid program that basically tortured and brainwashed their "patients" with crazy group scare tactics, psychological mind-f*** sessions that could go on for days, and attitudes from the rehab leaders that would make most Nazis cringe, escaped finally when he was 15. I'm glad he got out, though it might help if he now goes into a real rehab for his film-making skills, if only for a couple of days, to learn things like, say, structure, proper lighting, fluid camera movement, subtlety with actors, and other basics that are perpetually lost here.<br /><br />It's all the more frustrating because Gaglia is dealing with a subject that should be shown more to the public (there was recently a Newsweek article referring to a similar AA cult-rehab). Many times one wonders if certain personal character studies might work better as documentaries as opposed to narrative dramas. This is an ever-nagging sensation throughout Over the GW, where it almost feels like Gaglia wants to tell the truth but doesn't know how to communicate it properly through his characters. The character that one would think is closest to him, Bronx teen Tony Serra (Gallagher), who is taken by his mother to a rehab in New Jersey, would be closest to Gaglia, is actually much more of a one-dimensional being, where there is very little back-story (we see a brief freak-out, in black and white, in his old home) and little connection to his mother (Moriarty), who has more potential that is never tapped aside from a cold stone who passes her kids off to another. But there is a story to go with his two-year crisis, I guess.<br /><br />Right off the bat things get rough (a nude cavity search in the first five minutes), and soon it's clear that instead of medical care it's more like a cross between anger management and some bizarre religious sect, where the head doctor Hiller (Insinnia) is a total over-controlling loon. But soon Tony's sister Sofia (Donohue) gets thrown in to the program, and as opposed to Tony's repeated moments of outrage and supposed non-compliance, she goes head-on through the whacked-out three step program and once released becoming a runaway. At times there are bits in this fractured nightmare, where there's one woman, a 22 year old mother who has been in the program a year and a half finds she's become a prisoner not allowed to leave, and when the father of the main siblings comes and pays an enraged visit to Hiller when Sofia finally returns to them, that do contain some raw power, very brief glimpses of Gaglia being able to at least garner some leverage in pure melodrama.<br /><br />But these are moments few and far between. It's not just the unsuccessful characters, who are mostly reduced to stereotypes that veer into being like hysterical D.A.R.E. rip-offs (maybe some of them, like an angry black youth, the passive-aggressive counselors, or even Serra's older sister who is ratted out by the siblings as having taken a hit off a joint and almost thrown into the program, would resonate more if there was more time given to develop any of them). It's that Gaglia is so unfocused in his multiple roles on his tiny $30,000 budget that not one side of whatever potential talent he has can come through. He over-uses tints, mostly with a shade that looks urine-coated), he jiggles his hand-held DVX camera as if it's supposed to be intense ala City of God, occasionally a character will just shoot into frame randomly, his choices of music are like the worst selections possible from pseudo-indie soft-rockers, and there's even inane fake interview scenes with Nicholas Serra (inspiration ?) and Krakowsky that feel about as false as possible.<br /><br />Could Gaglia just not get any interviews with the real victims he was with and resort to would-be artistically cathartic plan B? Bottom line, no matter how much from-the-heart true life stories may appeal to you, don't bother seeing it in the theater, or even on rental, unless you love a final scene with two kids staring off into the digital-hued Hudson river sunset with the final words reading: Dedicated to the Kids. Oy.	0
I found the first bit of stop motion animation intriguing and the mostly live action short with the girl going about in whatever country it was kept my interest, but the other 11 odd shorts really didn't pique my interest or make me think of anything at all. The music and 8mm footage all seemed to be so random that it all just seemed random. I would not recommend this to any one unless you get to see it free.<br /><br />As for the music being so in step that didn't come across either. I rented the DVD because I thought it was all stop motion animation or SMA mixed with live action and only the first short was SMA, the second had a little stop motion mixed with mostly live action. There was paper cut-out stuff in one, and the rest was outdoor shots from an 8mm camera with the music bed. Just didn't have any meaning to it I could see.	0
I absolutely love this movie. I just managed to get a copy and saved it to watch on my birthday. This movie brings up several questions. One is. Who are the monsters of this world? To be different is just that. Different. The real monsters hide behind masks of ordinariness. They are those that everyone considers "a nice quiet bloke" who "didn't bother anybody". Or they are worse they are the characters such as played by Croneberg. Men who draw pleasure and power from carving up people and creating their own Books of Blood. I love the shapeshifters, people with gifts and those that may be abhorent for people to look upon. This movie touches on and explores what IS normal. Who are 'other' and what fear does to some. Even though I gave this movie 10 I am still sick of women who either scream or are so set in their ways that they cant see what is happening and being a vehicle for the things that destroyed Median. My other complaint was why didn't they ever make a second film. I for one would have loved to see a continuation of this most intriguing story that keep me captivated from beginning to end	1
It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans.<br /><br />Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.<br /><br />By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....	1