testing.txt

1	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	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	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	Although Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action.
1	...means "take up and read", which is precisely what I felt like doing after having seen this marvelous film.<br /><br />Von Ancken stimulates and inspires with this breathtaking and superbly executed adaptation of Tobias Wolff's 1995 New Yorker article of the same name. The incredible performance by Tom Noonan is brilliant and provocative and the editing, sound design, cinematography and directing are truly inspired. The nuanced changes and embellishments on the original story are subtle, clever, and make the film cinematically more dynamic. It's lyrical pacing is mesmerizing and begs you to watch it again.<br /><br />Watch out for this young director...he's going places.
1	<br /><br />Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over life time. I think best is yet to come.<br /><br />Fire is ok.<br /><br />But still good days are yet to come.<br /><br />Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her better.<br /><br />Thanks and Regards.<br /><br />PS: India doesn't have a director to make best use of her.
1	For a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love. That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with their lives, their life. Very nice.
1	As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.<br /><br />All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.<br /><br />The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.
1	Easily one of the best Indian films ever. Granted, that's not saying much(I made this conclusion after a whopping 15 minutes of watching). But I can truly say that Fire is also one of the really beautiful and brilliant films I've seen.<br /><br />Beautiful because of its imagery. The best example I can give is the parallelism between the 2 female leads(Radha and Sita) and the characters of the same name in Hindu mythology. Sita, for example, is the wife of the revered Lord Ram. As legend goes, Ram subjugates his wife by making her walk through a Fire to prove her `purity.' Sita, in response, cries and leaves him, reuniting with her mother(the Earth). This story has all sort of crazy links to the stories of the 2 Indian women(Nandita Das and Shabana Azmi). The word `Fire' all of a sudden has many meanings - marriage, tradition, religion, motherhood, and probably a few others I didn't catch.<br /><br />Brilliant because of its social overtones. Many who were offended by the premise for this movie should in fact be first to see Fire(e.g. my mom, who actually loved it). Why? Because although Fire is an attack on tradition, it is also an attack on tradition. In other words, that is its strength, NOT its weakness. Traditional conservative social mores(whether Indian or Canadian or American or whatever) are useless if they enslave you. Gender roles and self-denial can both do this.<br /><br />These are the things I took with me after seeing Fire. Hats off to Deepa Mehta…
1	The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.<br /><br />Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions.
1	The theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of passion/emotion in the acting.
1	If you had asked me how the movie was throughout the film, I would have told you it was great! However, I left the theatre feeling unsatisfied. After thinking a little about it, I believe the problem was the pace of the ending. I feel that the majority of the movie moved kind of slow, and then the ending developed very fast. So, I would say the ending left me disappointed.<br /><br />I thought that the characters were well developed. Costner and Kutcher both portrayed their roles very well. Yes! Ashton Kutcher can act! Also, the different relationships between the characters seemed very real. Furthermore,I thought that the different plot lines were well developed. Overall, it was a good movie and I would recommend seeing it.<br /><br />In conclusion: Good Characters, Great Plot, Poorly Written/Edited Ending. Still, Go See It!!!
1	Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.
1	For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human.
1	'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy. <br /><br />'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.<br /><br />International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship. <br /><br />Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language. <br /><br />Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two.
1	This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.<br /><br />The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.<br /><br />Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public
1	I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.<br /><br />The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.<br /><br />I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content.
1	Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband. <br /><br />But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.<br /><br />Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin.
1	It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!<br /><br />Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.
1	While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly
1	one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name "some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.
1	I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships. <br /><br />Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it. <br /><br />Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.
1	I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.<br /><br />I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.<br /><br />It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.<br /><br />But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs. <br /><br />Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.<br /><br />I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.<br /><br />Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.<br /><br />Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education? <br /><br />Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.<br /><br />THE GIST <br /><br />Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth.
1	There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.
1	Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.<br /><br />Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.<br /><br />One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.<br /><br />Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.<br /><br />So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.<br /><br />Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.<br /><br />This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.<br /><br />The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.<br /><br />By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.
1	Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.<br /><br />I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.<br /><br />Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.<br /><br />Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").<br /><br />But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.<br /><br />If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.
1	A stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and photography.<br /><br />A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and mores.
1	This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.
1	This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion. <br /><br />Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.<br /><br />Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.
1	CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.<br /><br />A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.<br /><br />A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.<br /><br />In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.<br /><br />The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.
1	Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.<br /><br />If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.<br /><br />On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.
1	It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended!
1	This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).<br /><br />The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.<br /><br />They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.<br /><br />The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!
1	I was pleasantly surprised to find this movie showing as a sneak preview in my local theater.<br /><br />We have all seen this plot line before (Top Gun, GI Jane, An Officer and a Gentleman) but a good script still works. This story is basically about the training of a Coast Guard rescue team with a couple of side story lines. Kevin Costner plays a highly successful rescue team leader, Ben Randall, who is forced into heading the training team after a tough mission. The movie takes us through the rigors of the training process and the personal stories of both the Costner character and that of Jake Fischer, played by Ashton Kutcher. I am happy to say that Ashton is great in this part.<br /><br />There are no great surprises in this movie and you will probably realize what is coming long before it arrives. However, the use of humor, the exploration of the toughness of the training and the fun of watching Ben Randall "do his own thing as a trainer", kept me riveted and thoroughly entertained. I really enjoy watching a movie that makes the entire audience laugh out loud, gasp here and there, and clap at the end as a tribute to the movie.<br /><br />We all had a good time (despite a couple of tough moments in the movie)and, I think, you will too.
1	The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives.
1	A fairly interesting look at some characters from India's burgeoning middle class. Although India is rapidly modernizing, her culture is not keeping up. This film involves the patriarchal society, where women are not yet truly free citizens. A land of arranged marriages, men who dally with mistresses with total impunity, and women who are expected to tolerate all this, will eventually come up short. I was impressed with Nandita Das, who was quite attractive, and played her character with total earnestness. But I was even more impressed with Shabana Azmi, who I understand is a long-time fixture of Bollywood. Her quiet beauty and low-key psychic suffering was excellent. The lesbian subtext of this film was never particularly erotic, and never titillating. (Darn!) Worth a look for those interested in vastly different cultures.
1	This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is easy to see why "Fire" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just privileged westerners.
1	SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers.<br /><br />I think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with "Oldboy" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric, physical action.<br /><br />The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the rôle of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, "sang" means "blood" in some languages - who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in "Badlands", where the girl appears psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger.<br /><br />Their relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through not moving, or through the wink of an eye.<br /><br />Park-wook has really, really mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully catch.<br /><br />The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot, her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion.<br /><br />All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's magnificent, and repellant at the same time.
1	(This has been edited for space)<br /><br />Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama, cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case Emile Zola's "Thérèse Raquin". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect.<br /><br />The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family. The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his friend. From there it all goes sideways.<br /><br />An ever changing film, this is a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are constantly being explored in a variety of ways<br /><br />The film has enough going on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film.<br /><br />The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the "affliction" that makes such perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking. Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks, the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement "I just wanted to spend eternity with you" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will break your heart. <br /><br />I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great (especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about aimlessly.<br /><br />I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward. One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year.
1	The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.<br /><br />Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.<br /><br />The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.<br /><br />Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully).
1	I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:<br /><br />how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.<br /><br />the very strong and well acted love scenes.<br /><br />the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.<br /><br />Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.<br /><br />the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.<br /><br />I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film. <br /><br />I recommend it.
1	Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama – yes, that is a lot of adjectives — inspired by the 19th century French novel by Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film.<br /><br />Check out the rest of our review at www.thefilmstage.com
1	Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot "Thirst" - laughter. Although sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular intervals. <br /><br />It helped of course that it the standard of acting by everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and malevolent she became.<br /><br />I read reviews that suggested this movie was overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean, the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film.
1	They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.<br /><br />That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.<br /><br />For rest of review please visit http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above.
1	I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to finally look at him as a serious actor.<br /><br />It was also a great tribute to the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.
1	The definition of a vampire is an inhumane corpse supposed to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living. Bakjwi nearly nails this concept on the head minus the cliché of pointy fangs and neck biting. Being an R rated movie, I knew this was actually going to pertain to vampires actually being vampires. Which means that the characters in the movie are going to do what vampires actually do without restraint and rightfully lack any glamorous moments in comparison to Twilight. Having viewed Chan-wook Park's preceding Oldboy, I had very high expectations of Bakjwi.<br /><br />I anticipated some awkward plot sequences with our anti-hero, known as Priest Sang-hyeon, and was very impressed by his performance as a holy-man who is forced into this quandary of being humane and obeying his thirst as a vampire. (SPOILER) After the initial premise of him surviving the defective blood transfusion, he starts to crave blood and discovers his super strength and his flying ability. The screen shots do his transition phase without overbearing on exposition. He starts drinking the blood of the dying and those who wish to be euthanized for moral reasons. The oft tragic and dysfunctional love affair the priest has with the manipulative Tae-joo is very riveting as they are played by The Host's Kanh-ho Song and actress OK-vin Kim. The special effects are properly placed in the backdrop and while it doesn't offer anything new in the ways of stunts and CGI, it didn't impose itself into the plot driven and character developed premise. The story and the pivotal plot points are very perverse and grotesque yet very original in its own Korean style. <br /><br />There aren't many negatives I can say about Bakjwi. Sometimes I ask myself if the priests transition phase could have showed more of the priest having an emotional crisis with his transformation, but then again this would have made the movie 3 hours long. The movie was long to begin with. On the same token, vampires really don't have much in the way of expressing emotions to begin with. As mentioned before, this movie is very tragic, so don't expect anything hopeful while watching this. <br /><br />Overall, Bakjwi is delightfully dark, morbid and original. I strongly recommend this movie for serious viewers who are past the teenage phase of Twilight. This is definitely the Korean answer to the Swedish Let The Right One In, which is also a good movie.
1	i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.<br /><br />Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.<br /><br />the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!<br /><br />i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!
1	We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst.<br /><br />This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the credits roll. "Thirst" is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense, but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy. The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best conclusions to a film I have seen.<br /><br />Overall this is an exceptional film that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different) take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already interested. See it. Do not hesitate
1	I'm the first to recognize that Chan-wook Park's Thirst is exceptionally well made, but spending over two hours with Tae-joo(OK-vin Kim)is enough for anyone to tolerate for such a length of time. Sang-hyeon(Kang-ho Song)is a priest desiring to volunteer for experimental studies on those willing to subject themselves to rigorous injections concerning a specific virus which kills infectiously. Instead of legitimately dying, Hyeon becomes a vampire, always yearning for the sustenance blood gives for him to fight off an infectious disease which returns causing the symptoms which flat-lined him to begin with(..bumps/sores, and the body vomits blood). Sunlight, as is known in the vampire genre, causes torturous death if exposed to Hyeon for a length of time. Hyeon falls in lust with Tae-joo, the wife of sickly childhood friend Kang-woo(Ha-kyun Shin). Tae-joo was taken in by Mrs. Ra(Hae-sook Kim), regarded as a puppy, and practically used as a domestic animal to be ordered around. Ta-joo is miserable in this situation and begins a torrid affair she instigates with Hyeon, soon manipulating him into perhaps killing Kang-woo by having him believe she's a victim of abuse. Renouncing his priesthood, Hyeon dives headlong into the relationship with Tae-joo, soon a willing participant in killing Kang-woo. This incident, which Tae-woo contributed to(..using a boat, in the middle of a lake, both proceeded to burying him underwater, Tae-woo keeping him Kang-woo from re-surfacing as he attempted to re-enter)will haunt both, as circumstances arise with Kang-woo "missing"(Hyeon got rid of him, where police would not find his corpse). Soon Mrs Ra suffers a stroke(..though, one finger and the ability to blink her eyes contribute mightily as the story progresses, showing that she more aware than they are led to believe), and Hyeon gives Tae-joo a special birthday gift..vampirism. In doing so, Hyeon has created a monster. Tae-joo admits(..though a slip of the tongue)that, in fact, Kang-woo never hurt her, and as she thirsts for blood it is soon realized that killing for a supply doesn't bother her morally or psychologically. Tae-joo becomes such a hand full, Hyeon has to take desperate measures if he is to stop such a menace to society, himself included.<br /><br />I will say that Thirst is one of the best horror films I've seen regarding 2009. It's a methodical approach Park takes and we are led down a dark road with Hyeon and Tae-joo, as they commit terrible deeds with nothing positive ever to come from their unholy union. Innocent people die because of Hyeon's love(..what once was lust shifts into an obsessive love by the end)for Tae-joo, and it will cease to end if he doesn't make a painful choice. We see inside their heads, their souls, and it isn't always pretty. 2 hours with them can be quite exhausting..but, credit to the director for pulling no punches in regards to devious behavior and how the powers of vampirism can be given to the wrong people. Hyeon, seen as a rather pleasant soul at the opening, accepts "hell" for Tae-joo so one could look at Thirst as a unique love story, but not exactly a healthy one.<br /><br />In regards to the violence, while Park does have a tendency to pull away from extremely graphic details, there's enough sadism involved to perhaps turn the stomach a bit. At the very least, the way the violence is carried out may be certain to leave a lasting impact. The sexual situations between Hyeon and Tae-joo can be pretty heated and erotic, while also sordid and morally reprehensible. The movie, I think, is still quite a complex examination of the lengths one will go to remain attached to an object of affection(lust).
1	The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/<br /><br />And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.
1	There's this whole theory of horror that some people adhere closely to that the monsters and the violence should be kept off-screen. Park Chan-Wook throws that concept completely out the window and shows directly what he wants--and what he wants to show is pretty much anything he can think of. Leaving it to the actors and dialog to create subtlety, from a stylistic perspective Park seems willing to do just about anything to get his point across. Whether it's long involved ensemble scenes with the camera whizzing around a mah-jong table or entire weeks confined to a single shot between two other scenes, dialog from the scenes before and after bleeding over them, Park doesn't keep to a specifically structured style but focuses more on telling the entire story of a couple's relationship from virginal remove through utter codependence to utter self-annihilation--and uses vampirism as the link and priestliness as the drama. It's that simple, and that complex, at the same time.<br /><br />You gotta give him credit. Too many people are ready to compare any modern vampire movie to Twilight, with Twilight almost always being the lesser of the works, but here the stories are actually comparable, but this one is more raw and honest. None of this sparkly coming in the window during the night to talk crap, but anything ranging from the dirtiest, most desperate and virginal sex scene to eventual spousal abuse as the two leads begin to vie for power over one another. It's the same deal--guy and girl meet, girl finds out guy is a vampire, decides to join him anyway, but with no happily ever after, just straight-up limited time as they become forced to keep each other closer and closer and run out of options. The girl's motivations are particularly interesting as one desperately craving power and attention, to a fault, foiled by the guy who just wants to live a good life as best he can under the circumstances, but is a hypocrite who cannot admit that he's merely using his vampirism as an excuse to act against his moral training.<br /><br />The movie isn't perfect and it does tend to stretch (there's no three act, five act, or any act structure here, just scene after scene of character building and dysfunctional romance), but what's great about it is that Park Chan-Wook is willing to show everything frankly and honestly while delighting the horror sensibilities of tension and gore. He also provides an expertly chosen soundtrack to hit the emotional high-notes in a pretty effective way, too.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
1	A beloved and devoted priest from a small town volunteers for a medical experiment which fails and turns him into a vampire. <br /><br />Physical and psychological changes lead to his affair with a wife of his childhood friend who is repressed and tired of her mundane life. <br /><br />The one-time priest falls deeper in despair and depravity. As things turns for worse, he struggles to maintain whats left of his humanity...<br /><br />The vampire movie should have really been extinct now thanks to the poor efforts of the Twilight and Underworld franchises, but the director injects new blood into the story of the vampire, by putting simple things into perspective.<br /><br />These vampires have reflections, and no fangs, but still feed and die the same. Making the main protagonist a priest really opens up a can of worms for questioning ones acts. The priest primarily feeds to make himself better, but when he meets his friends unfulfilled wife, carnal instincts set in.<br /><br />What makes this film intensely erotic is that when the couple consent for the first time, they are experiencing something they have never before, forbidden passion, which makes the scenario all that more sensual.<br /><br />Chan-Wook adds some much needed humour into the film, but this is only realised in the final third of the movie. We see the daughter lift her mother in the chair in front of everyone, and when she realises her own strength, just puts the chair down and carry on. Hilarious.<br /><br />and the final act wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, or even the three Stooges as the couple fight for survival/death respectively.<br /><br />CGI is subtle and fantastic, and the scenes with them jumping from building to building is so graceful, you could be watching ballet.<br /><br />The vampire genre feels fresh and vibrant after this, but more importantly, has the eroticism and intensity that most vampire films are missing these days. It's violent, but from the director in question, i wouldn't expect anything different.<br /><br />A really interesting story, with fantastic characters and beautiful cinematography.
1	Of the Korean movies I've seen, only three had really stuck with me. The first is the excellent horror A Tale of Two Sisters. The second and third - and now fourth too - have all been Park Chan Wook's movies, namely Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), and now Thirst. <br /><br />Park kinda reminds me of Quentin Tarantino with his irreverence towards convention. All his movies are shocking, but not in a gratuitous sense. It's more like he shows us what we don't expect to see - typically situations that go radically against society's morals, like incest or a libidinous, blood-sucking, yet devout priest. He's also quite artistically-inclined with regards to cinematography, and his movies are among the more gorgeous that I've seen.<br /><br />Thirst is all that - being about said priest and the repressed, conscience-less woman he falls for - and more. It's horror, drama, and even comedy, as Park disarms his audience with many inappropriate yet humorous situations. As such, this might be his best work for me yet, since his other two movies that I've seen were lacking the humor element that would've made them more palatable for repeat viewings.
1	'Oldboy' director Park Chun-wook returns with what must be one of the yuckiest and at the same time most serious vampire flicks in movie history.<br /><br />Trusting the latest Hollywood fad, vampires these days are supposed to be rather nonviolent, asexual, love-lorn chevaliers instead of the evil rampantly sexual blood-sucking mind-manipulating man-beasts of yore. This is the film you want to see if you want to remember the sticky thrills of the past... well, at least in the second half.<br /><br />'Thirst' starts out with a lengthy character exposition culminating in a slightly different love story. The vampire transformation of a priest is, over quite some time, sidelined by the romantic and sexual aspects of the story, which makes for some awkward viewing. But the last 40 minutes or so are surprisingly gory. Well, maybe not so surprisingly if you know 'Oldboy' and 'I'm a Cyborg but that's OK', but I guess it's fair to say that 'Thirst' beats Park's earlier films in terms of in-your-face violence. <br /><br />All in all, be warned that this is neither art cinema nor a horror flick. It may be too disgusting for many and too tame for some. 'Thirst' is original, entertaining and fortunately a little less weird than Park Chun-wook's earlier endeavors.
1	Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.<br /><br />Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.<br /><br />Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.<br /><br />Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.<br /><br />Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.<br /><br />See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.
1	I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.
1	The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus. Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters- Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and "idiot" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama. There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it up into another plane cinematically.<br /><br />That Thirst also rises up to the awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic/erotic, part dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all.<br /><br />Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape, which doesn't last long over the scope of the story.<br /><br />If it's not as great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of 'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight, Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5/10
1	Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a wonderful recipe.<br /><br />Directed in part in a style similar to the "Sympathy" trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of cliché it does offer some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout.<br /><br />Our leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end.<br /><br />If you like left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try.
1	After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.<br /><br />The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.<br /><br />The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clichés.<br /><br />The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.<br /><br />This is just a great film.
1	Now that I have seen it, it was NOT what I was expecting, at least not until the very END. I read some of the other reviews before picking up a used copy of this from Amazon and was glad I did. Having been first introduced to Park's work via Oldboy, I was curious to how he'd treat the genre and was rather pleased at the clever manner in which he executed it. I think Park has matured in terms of presentation because while Oldboy and some of his other work has very nice and deliberate camera work, he has some nice innovations in Bakjwi that I had not seen in other vamp movies. For example the scene where Father Hyeon is realizing the "beast" growing within him as he gives his shoes to the always barefoot Tae-ju and he is able to SEE the blood pumping through Tae-ju's skin and his eye's widen in blood-lust for it. That was a nice effect. I was also happy that Park did not CG the crap out of the movie and the is in fact very little CG at all. I came away from Bakjwi being totally set up to think one thing was going to happen and get taken for a ride in true Park fashion. Additionally, I liked that Park played with a little symbolism and reversal whereas we don't usually get this is Asia cinema. During the beginning of the movie we see the plot develop slowly and get to know the characters and you feel like an invisible observer to the thing that are transpiring. Park treats you a little like Ghost of Christmas future coming to show you, albeit a bit boringly, what life is like outside your world. Ah, but then we start to feel a little kinship with the befallen Father and his burgeoning lust for Tae-ju and conflict with duty as a priest. We almost start to root for them even until Park not so nicely slaps us back into reality and we really see that in the end Bakjwi is a movie about moral dilemma and right and wrong. It won't spoil it if I tell you to watch Bakjwi from the mindset of a priest and I think you'll come away from it with what Park wants you to come away with. Don't expect Oldboy and stylization because that's not what you'll get here. A very interesting take on the genre indeed. Those who missed the MANY literary elements and religious allusions watched some other movie, not Bakjwi. After Bakjwi, watch Let The Right One IN, it's also not what you'll expect either.
1	No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And of course being a priest while being "naughty" exaggerates all that. Plus this is the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet.<br /><br />If you have seen Wook's previous works/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives outside the mainstream and does a very good job ...
1	The vampire "craze" has, in my opinion, actually proved its worthiness of such infamous categorization. There were many sub-genre films last year from a multitude of countries. I've reviewed many and have a few more to discuss. Forgive my indulgence, but since I've recognized the trend as a phenomenon (which it is and, coincidentally, features my favorite horror staple). I'm going to now move outside of North America for a bit and introduce you to hopefully meaning films that you didn't see as of now.<br /><br />Of the many effects of Twilight is the creation of "guy" and "girl" vampire movies. I hate this sexist categorization, which has the effect of polarizing an entire generation of fans into "sides". I think men are prone to hate Stephenie Meyer's work (and its offspring) to some degree because they feel some sense of betrayal that an archetype which was always theirs is now liberated. Women may be unlikely to enjoy future "neutral" pics since they grew up with ironclad expectations that were enforced four times. We need more directors to create vampire films which either gender is capable of enjoying (unequally) if vampires are going to survive the craze and remain relevant. Cue: Thirst This Korean film was directed by Park Chan-Wook of Oldboy fame. There are two ways to dissect it. Either it straddles between gender expectations and is universally marginally enjoyable, or it is a floundering mess that doesn't decide which target audience it prefers and should therefore be viewed by no one. Don't let me convince you that the film has no inclinations. Its director is a man whose fame is story-driven action films. Its protagonist is male and has a passive-aggressive interest in his lover (more on this later). Still, his desire for a woman he has known both before and after mortal life is not contrived, and his attention is returned. There is a male slant to this picture, yet it is not so one-sided that women could not enjoy it. The same cannot be said of Daybreakers or New Moon.<br /><br />The plot follows an Emile Zola novel called Thérèse Raquin, which I have not read. According to Wikipedia, the novel is about an affair that develops between a married woman and a single man. He kills her husband during a fishing trip and begins dating her. The two of them are incapable of having sex because they picture the dead man's body between them. They are thus driven to insanity, but care for the woman's ailing mother. At the novel's conclusion, they try to kill each other, discover each other's plans, and commit suicide.<br /><br />Now, transcribe this nearly 150 year old French novel into modern South Korea and you've got Thirst. Chan-Wook doesn't embellish the story enough to elevate this to must-see. He often ignores many of his own ideas in favor of following his inspiration. I think the most memorable parts are when his scruples are unhinged by narrative. His use of the mother-in-law as the foil for their bad romance is just perfect. See it.<br /><br />The protagonist is originally a devout Christian who becomes a vampire after a faulty blood transfusion following his volunteering for a new medicine. He thus becomes the god he once was smitten with. People flock to him and view him as a grand healer. OK. That's really cool and could have provided a great basis for his relationship. Yet this idea is given little idea screen time as he changes into a realistic Christ figure who tries to maintain his virtue even though his lifestyle demands that he relinquish it. Instead of confronting the delusional people, he instead sips blood out of comatose hospital patients.<br /><br />Let's continue with the Christian allusion. The woman tricks the vampire man into killing her husband. Her overprotective mother-in-law suffers a stroke and eventually warns friends of the family of her daughter-in-law's treachery (finger waggles). The man kills her but resurrects her. The two of them invite former friends over and the woman begins mercilessly harassing the humans. The man says enough is enough and decides to drive to a beach and forces her into waiting for sunrise with him. They both die, but he atones for her crimes (and his own but the film portrays her evil more prominently).<br /><br />The woman character is a caricature, and her profession offers an explanation for her behavior. She is a housewife with no education, while the man is a priest whose mortal life was restrictive. Vampirism magnifies their characteristics. She becomes a monster like one would expect of someone without knowledge. He becomes a demigod with a spirit. His life is how atheists view themselves and her life is how religious people view those without divine intervention.
1	From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly, mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival, he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim. Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers. The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent, especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man, does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives one of the best performances of the year.
1	I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work.<br /><br />I STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that "Park has not moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah." Because you know what? He HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with, how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of "Sympathy For Mr Vengeance" with the frantic and extravagance of "Oldboy"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style, but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true with the release of "Thirst". <br /><br />"Thirst" is an incredible picture, it literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore, great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story. Watch it as soon as you can!
1	Thirst<br /><br />I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen, and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was flawless.<br /><br />Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a whole.<br /><br />The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film and worked well enough.<br /><br />For me, the only place where this film lacked was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long.<br /><br />But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect. 9/10
1	If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.<br /><br />If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.
1	As others that have commented around the web... I'm a 130 pilot in the Coast Guard. Having said that, and being the skeptic I am, I went expecting the over-the-top cheese factors. There was some cheese, but all in all, not much.. and the film was pretty accurate.<br /><br />I watched the trailer again today. After seeing the film yesterday, I've realized the trailer gives the impression the movie is nothing but rescue after rescue action scenes. This isn't the case.<br /><br />The movie is truly more character/story driven than action. The inner struggles both Costner and Kutcher are dealing with.. Kutcher's is revealed further into than movie than Costner's is.<br /><br />Of course, there is a minor love story.. no surprise there. But for the most part, the movie tells the tale of two lives that come together, and after some time, help each other heal old wounds.<br /><br />As girlie as it sounds, Costner and, as much as I try not to like him, Kutcher do actually work quite well together and compliment each other very well in the movie.<br /><br />As critics have stated, you've seen it all before.. Top Gun, Officer and a Gentlemen, etc. But what movie hasn't been remade a million times.<br /><br />I can recall only one F word being spoken.. and can't really recall any other language.<br /><br />The movie is 2+ hours, and for some, may tend to get a little long towards the end.<br /><br />You'll laugh, you may cry, but I can honestly say, it was worth the $4 I paid.<br /><br />I hope you enjoy the movie.
1	Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your involvement in the story and characters. <br /><br />And there's a lot of literal leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase). The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman - but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror.<br /><br />The acting is superb, particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22, shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance. <br /><br />If you love real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it immediately.
1	I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality. Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose.<br /><br />Also helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it.
1	Three children are born at the exact same time,during a lunar eclipse.Just before their 10th birthday they embark on a killing spree."Bloody Birthday" is a typical slasher from early 80's.It's a pretty average stuff with plenty of nudity.The evil children never generate any menace and there is almost no suspense.There is also no gore or scares in "Bloody Birthday",but the film is mildly entertaining.Unfortunately no real explanation is provided for the kids sudden homicidal mania.The murder scenes are quite gruesome for example we've got death by handgun,baseball bat,skipping rope and shovel.So if you're a fan of early 80's slasher movies give this one a look.
1	I thought I was going to watch another Friday The 13th or a Halloween rip off, But I was surprised, It's about 3 psycho kids who kill, There's not too many movies like that, I can think of Mikey, Children Of The Corn and a few others, It's not the greatest horror movie but it's a least worth a rent.
1	Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one) showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless <br /><br />DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers for "Kiss of the Taratula", "Don't open the Door", & a red-band one for "Homework" (which features nudity) <br /><br />My Grade: B-
1	Three children are born during a solar eclipse and ten years later this has somehow caused them to grow up without consciences. As their simultaneous tenth birthday celebrations approach, they become cunning and calculating cold-blooded murderers. Nice-girl local teen Joyce Russel (Lori Lethin) finds herself confronting these little terrors when most others are falling for their angelic demeanors.<br /><br />Hearkening back to films like "The Bad Seed" and "Village of the Damned", this films' premise of evil children may not be wholly original but it's still pretty disturbing. All three of the child actors - Elizabeth Hoy, Billy Jacoby, and Andy Freeman - are chillingly convincing. Director Ed Hunt and his co-writer Barry Pearson maintain the unpleasant yet compelling mood for the duration of the film; they go so far as to have the little girl charge admission for an unwilling peep show involving her older sister (future stand-up comedienne and MTV personality Julie Brown, whose striptease is a real eyeful).<br /><br />Name actors Susan Strasberg, as an icy teacher, and Jose Ferrer, with barely any screen time as a doctor, add to the proceedings with their presence, while K.C. Martel, one of the youngsters from the original "The Amityville Horror", is very likable as Joyces' kid brother. Other familiar faces like Ellen Geer, B-movie he-man Michael Dudikoff, Cyril O'Reilly ("Porky's", "Dance of the Damned"), Joe Penny ('Jake and the Fatman'), and William Boyett ("The Hidden") can be seen as well.<br /><br />Touching upon such parental fears as children playing with guns that they've discovered and being locked inside old refrigerators, "Bloody Birthday" is a little more than just a slasher variation with kids as antagonists. Aided and abetted by Arlon Obers' music score, this film sticks in the memory more than some of its brethren, without lots of gore to fall back on (although that arrow through the eye gag works quite well).<br /><br />Bleak, nasty, and downbeat, "Bloody Birthday" is worth a look for the curious.<br /><br />7/10
1	Story about three eclipse (maybe even Indigo, ha) children beginning their love for murder. Oh, and the people who are "hot" on their trail.<br /><br />Bloody Birthday, a pretty mediocre title for the film, was a nice lil surprise. I was in no way expecting a film that dealt with blood-thirsty psychopath kids. And I may say it's also one of the best flicks I've seen with kids as the villains. By the end of the movie I seriously wanted these kids to die in horrible fashion.<br /><br />It's a really solid 80s horror flick, but how these kids are getting away with all this mayhem and murder is just something that you can't not think about. Even the slightest bit of investigation would easily uncover these lil sh!ts as the murderers. But there seems to be only a couple police in town, well by the end, only one, and he seemed like a dimwit, so I suppose they could have gotten away with it. Haha, yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet-pilot.<br /><br />Nevertheless, this movie delivered some evilass kids who were more than entertaining, a lot of premarital sex and a decent amount of boobage. No kiddin! If you're put off by the less than stellar title, dash it from your mind and give this flick a shot. It's a very recommendable and underrated 80s horror flick.
1	Bloody Birthday plays on the assumed innocence of children and shows them as bloodthirsty monsters. Steven (Andy Freeman), Curtis (Billy Jayne;credited as Billy Jacoby), and Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy), were all born on the same day during an eclipse. Besides sharing a birthday, they also share a love of murder (and they're not picky about who they kill either). Young Billy, Elizabeth, and Andy play the parts of these emotionless monsters quite well but they know when to put on the charm too. But they can't go on fooling everyone. This is an overall good horror flick, its not too unrealistic, there are a few good moments of suspense and the kids portrayed the roles well, (the grown-ups are pretty hammy though). I'd say its well worth seeing, (I own a copy myself).
1	This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally underrated murderous moppets movie "Devil Times Five," but it's still an above average killer kid opus nonetheless.<br /><br />The slim, but serviceable plot centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed, albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale. Writer/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey "Starship Invasions," the uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) "Alien Warrior," and the stunningly silly "The Brain," does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending manages to be truly jolting.<br /><br />Moreover, the top-drawer cast further elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a small-town doctor, future "Jake and the Fatman" TV series star Joe Penny as an amateur astrologer, "The Prey" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine, Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, "American Ninja" 's Michael Dudikoff as a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the hauntingly melancholy "Dance of the Damned") as a libidinous teen dude who gets bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video dross as "Dr. Alien" and "Demonwarp"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious novelty tune "The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun," as the lovely, vacuous, full-breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying slasher item.
1	This movie is great. 80's sleazy slasher movie about three kids born during an eclipse, so they kill everyone they see. The reason they kill makes practically no sense, but it just adds to the charm of this movie. And dang, these kids are crazy, especially Curtis. If you've seen the movie, you know who I am talking about. That kid's vicous! Although the movie doesn't have much gore, it is entertaining, and for some reason you kind of care about the characters. It also has some nice nudity. Has some decent acting as well, really a decent 80's slasher movie, it's worth a look if you ever get the chance to see it. You'll have nightmares about those darn kids though, I guarantee you!
1	I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made "The Postman" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in "Butterfly Effect". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo!
1	Sorry about the "extremely clever" summary phrase. I don't know what I was thinking, but I really couldn't help myself.<br /><br />I've been meaning to see 'Bloody Birthday' for a long time and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise to find a copy of this film by accident and for such a low price. And believe me, I live in a small South American village and these things are very unlikely to happen. It's a real shame that some of these 'gems' from the 80s are now almost completely forgotten. 'Bloody Birthday' is one of those movies that surprisingly ages well enough to remain watchable nowadays. Not a masterpiece for sure, but still entertaining and guess what?... it doesn't really have unintentionally funny scenes. I know it's a shocker if we keep in mind that this is a low budget flick from the early 80s about a group of evil children who kill people. But trust me, the movie manages to remain respectable and watchable for the most part.<br /><br />In 'Blood Birthday', the story revolves around three children who are born during a a total eclipse. According to astrology, during eclipses, the sun and the moon block Saturn, which controls emotions. As a consequence, the three children who are born that day, eventually become uncaring and evil. Since they don't experience any feelings of remorse whatsoever, these 10-year-old kids gang up against basically everyone who stands in their way, including their own parents and siblings... and kill them! The body count increases day after day and the police authorities believe that there's a psychopath lurking around the place. In the meantime, Debbie, Curtis and Steven, don't hesitate to keep butchering people, since nobody seems to suspect of those sweet angel faces (?)<br /><br />Like I was saying before, 'Bloody Birthday' is surprisingly NOT funny. I know I said that before, but I'm truly surprised by this. I was expecting some hilariously bad scenes, but the movie proved me wrong. True, it's not exactly what most people would consider a 'serious' horror movie, but if I have to be fair, I'd say that the story is decently executed. One of the most important reasons why one would normally expect laughable situations (like I did), it's because in these kind of movies in which the main villains are children, the young actors tend to be plain awful and they make the whole thing laughable. Let's face it: kids tend to be horrible actors, which is understandable and we can't blame them for that. But to my surprise, the three young actors who played the merciless killers in this film, looked very disturbing and not at all funny. The rest of the actors are also good and if you're a George Clooney fan, you can see his uncle playing a doctor in this movie. Yeah, I know right?... who cares?. Also, Julie Brown, the great actress, singer, comedienne and gay icon, gives a solid performance as the naughty older sister and in case anyone is interested in nudity: she also strips in one of the scenes and she looks great naked. Too bad she didn't have more time on the screen though! Julie is 'absolutely fabulous':P<br /><br />So basically, this movie is fine if you're in the mood for some modest horror from the 80s. My only objection regarding 'Bloody Birthday' would be the way to justify the children's motives. This is perhaps one of the lowest points of the film. Let's see: if children who were born during an eclipse end up being heartless killers, then how come these three were the only ones who actually murdered people? I'm sure there were other children who had been born the same day... and during other days of total eclipse too, oh well!. Overall, no big deal, it's just a simple observation, that's all. I've seen worse, trust me. Take 'The Children' (1980) for example, in which the precocious killer get their evilness after being turned into zombies by toxic cloud. No, believe me, 'Bloody Birthday' is far more decent and if you enjoy simple slashers, you're going to enjoy this one very much.<br /><br />So, now you know: you're invited to the children's birthday party... and the hosts will be serving a delicious poisoned cake for you and the rest of the guests. Come on, you can't miss it ;)
1	Three ten-year-old children born at the same time during a solar eclipse begin to slyly murder anybody that offends them.<br /><br />While killer kid movies weren't exactly new at the time of this twisted 80's slasher the theme of children as murderers works nicely for this film. Bloody Birthday does deliver some good chills and suspense, while managing to be a competent killer thriller with some strange qualities. It straddles a fine line between cheesy and creepy, but it does remain entertaining throughout with an interesting plot. There's some strong murder scenes, as well as a good bit of nudity to establish this as a solid slasher guilty pleasure.<br /><br />The cast does a fairly good job. Young stars Elizabeth Hoy and K.C. Martel deliver some menacing performances, while rising star Julie Brown does a striptease before a memorable murder scene. Veteran star Susan Strasberg does well as the teacher and Jose Ferrer has a cameo appearance.<br /><br />All around this off-beat slasher entry isn't bad, though it's admittedly not flawless, but it is well worth watching for genre fans.<br /><br />*** out of ****
1	This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for "Just Say" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must.
1	An absolute classic of 80's scare flix. This one isn't like any other as it pits pint-size, wild-eyed, psychotic youngsters with an urge to kill against all the grown-ups in town. Bud from JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (80's gold again) plays one of the killer-kids and he's paired up with one of the little girls Jake Blues tries to purchase in the BLUES BROTHERS. There is a third blond boy, but he keeps disappearing from the movie for whatever reason. The violence is hilarious at times and also surprisingly gruesome in spots. The demonic gang of smiling kids, though somehow possessed by extra-planetary means, bear little resemblance to the droid-ish Children of the Damned, who never thought to use pistols, crossbows and shovels to kill those pesky adults. Julie Brown (not Downtown Julie Brown-the other one) shows her rack, like three times, as she dances around in her bedroom. This movie is a rarity that I cannot believe I missed growing up in the 80's. This would have been my absolute favorite movie as a kid if I had seen it. Where is the sequel the ending begs for? This movie is just incredible. Seek it out at all costs.
1	I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.<br /><br />Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this. <br /><br />Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!!
1	Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". I especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results looked like it!)<br /><br />I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD notice!
1	Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.
1	In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.<br /><br />1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.<br /><br />Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.<br /><br />However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.<br /><br />It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.<br /><br />8/10
1	First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz, was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10/10 ********** = greatest ever!
1	Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.<br /><br />10/10
1	Brilliant and moving performances by Tom Courtenay and Peter Finch.
1	Here is a movie of adventure, determination, heroism, & bravery. Plus, it's set back in the late 1800s which makes it even more interesting. It's a wonderful, adventurous storyline, and Alyssa Milano is wonderful at playing the wholesome, confident, no-nonsense Fizzy...a great role-model. This is one of my favorite movies. It is a movie to be watched again and again and will inspire you and enrich your life without a doubt. Not only is the storyline excellent, but the movie also has fabulous scenery and music and is wonderfully directed. This movie is as good as gold!
1	While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that he will return to her.<br /><br />Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great film.
1	In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch. The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee! Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart
1	This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's "Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada".
1	I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!
1	If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.<br /><br />This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see.
1	This is a magnificent, and in many ways impressive film. I saw it on TV as a little boy, with my throat almost strangled with tears, and again today on the magnificently restored Criterion DVD.<br /><br />Cranes is the very essence of the War Weepie. Imagine Umbrellas of Cherbourg with no music and no color, or Waterloo Bridge with no class consciousness.<br /><br />Tatiana Samoilova, a cross between Vivien Leigh and Bjork, is deeply affecting as a pretty girl whose fiancé enlists and doesn't write or come back.<br /><br />The fiancé, Boris, dies on the front, and his death scene is indescribably romantic. Very daring too, because so close to "over the top." But that scene will stay with you.<br /><br />Although the Soviets were so defined by WWII, the movie is quite unspecific, and more powerful for it. The pre-war and post-war scenes have a very 1957 feel. There is no attempt at period detail. The whole film becomes more and more stylized, until the Siberian scenes, which feel like a modern opera set (that is a compliment). The cathartic final scene is milked to its last drop - there again, comparable to Cherbourg. The production feels like a big budget (those staircase scenes must have cost a pretty kopek).<br /><br />Go for it. Don't expect a bitter socialist pill (although it is, of course, very sad). The Cranes are Flying is an impressive slice of world cinema, quite advanced considering where and when it was made.
1	I'm out of words to describe the beauty of "The Cranes are Flying", but I'll try anyway to write about it. It's a powerful and delicate love story that takes its place in the Second World War. It's the classic story of lovers (Boris & Veronika) separated by the war and of what comes between them. The film's images are so gorgeous, that you'll be carried away - the film technique is in perfect unison with the emotion.<br /><br />There are few scenes that portray directly the war: A bombing - wind, lightnings, explosions - that will have important consequences in the life of the main protagonist, Veronika, who waits for the return of Boris; and there's another scene on the front, where we we will be confronted by a emotional/visual hurricane showing the images played in Boris' mind. Another scene works as the leitmotif of the film and provides its title - the cranes flying in the sky. This image stands as a the symbol for Nature and its seasons and underlines the final message of the film: Not to give up hope and fight for a better future.<br /><br />Kalatozov is a great director, this film is visually stunning and it also touched me deeply. It is not just pure technique. <br /><br />Tatyana Samojlova is perfect as Veronika. What more can I say? The film transcends the time it was made - the action takes place during the Second World War. But it could have happened anytime, anywhere. As long there are wars (great or small) the film and its message will remain relevant.
1	Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film.
1	This is a fantastic film. The acting is some of the best I've seen. Tatyana Samojlova is obviously very beautiful, and she automatically draws you into the film with her believable acting. The The cinematography was extremely ahead of its time. Watching it, I could see parallels of cinematography used today. This is truly a groundbreaking film. Because of the cinematography and acting, the audience can feel the change in tone from beginning to end as the tone in the environment in the movie changes. It's a very touching and powerful piece. My friend told me it was must see, and I definitely agree with her. This is one of those films that you watch and never forget. Everyone should see this intensely moving film. This should be put on everyone's "Movies to See Before ________ (whatever)" list.
1	"The Dresser" is perhaps the most refined of backstage films. The film is brimming with wit and spirit, for the most part provided by the "energetic" character of Norman (Tom Courtenay). Although his character is clearly gay, and certainly has an attraction for the lead performer (Albert Finney) that he assists, the film never dwells on it or makes it more than it is.<br /><br />The gritty style of Peter Yates that worked so well in "Bullitt" is again on display, and gives the film a sense of realism and coherence. This is much appreciated in a story that could so easily have become tedious. In the end, "The Dresser" will bore many people silly, but it will truly be a delight to those who love British cinema.<br /><br />7.7 out of 10
1	Fabulous cinematography from Sergei Urusevsky help to make this a stunning piece of work. The opening scenes are as if one is leafing through some master photographer's album and as the story begins to unfold we are swept away with both the events depicted and the beautiful look. All is well shot but there are several whole sequences that are simply breathtaking. Difficult to describe without 'spoiling' but suffice to say one is a very intense scene during an air raid and the lady left behind and her lover's brother are at odds as the sirens whine and the windows shatter. Another superimposes a swirling staircase and a spinning shot of tree tops and even develops into a fantasy sequence. Soviet film making of the highest order.
1	Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us, straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well as those awaiting their return.<br /><br />Communist Russia shows how involved all were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and everyday.<br /><br />The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way, needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris' return.<br /><br />Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film. Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water, a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of characters in frame together.<br /><br />The real feats, however, are those instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement and mise en scène can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do.
1	Mikhail Kalatozov's The Cranes are flying is a superb film. Winner of the golden palm at Cannes Film Festival, it has an excellent cinematography and performance by Tatyana Samojlova, the only Russian actor ever to win an award in Cannes for a performance. She plays Veronika, a teenager in love with her boyfriend, happy and without preoccupations, with plans of getting married. Her life will get upside down when World War II strikes and her boyfriend volunteers to the army. The film depicts the effect of war on a teenager love and on the people that stayed and saw their loved ones go and fight, waiting for a letter or other information. It is a portrayal of lost innocence. Samojlova does a magnificent job, and her character transformation will break your heart. The camera movement is fast with a lot of close-ups, it is a dancing camera. The first scene in the stairs is fantastic, but it isn't the only one, there is later a scene when Veronika attempts committing suicide, and another, in my opinion one of the most powerful scenes in movie history, the bombing of Veronika's house when she runs the stairs in the middle of fire, to find her apartment completely destroyed. Simply great! 10 out of 10.
1	Like in a circle the movie leads back to its point of departure, the image of the cranes that are crossing a Muscovite sky. They represent the freedom to realize your life as you wish, in order to aspire the greatest possible fulfilment.<br /><br />In the beginning Veronica and Boris experience such a promise of happiness, and their eyes follow the path of the cranes in exhilaration. It seems as if they might be able to live according to their dreams.<br /><br />But Man is not a bird. Life draws up its own rules, from which no human can escape and which we cannot change - not even by making a supreme effort. War breaks out, and without much hesitation Boris signs up for the front in order to fulfil his patriotic duty. He cannot even say good-bye to Veronica, for she arrives late at the assembly point from which the soldiers are sent away. Surrounded by a jubilant crowd all her attempts to attract Boris' attention must inevitably fail.<br /><br />Boris eventually gets killed in war, without Veronica learning about it for the moment. His brother Mark, a vigorous musician, who obtained the exemption from military service by corruption, is eager to take his place. Veronica initially resists, but in a frightful night of bombing she finally falls victim to his charms. A marriage takes place, which is never accepted by the family.<br /><br />Soon feelings of guilt seize hold of Veronica and she realizes that Boris' return is the one and only thing she actually longs for. She therefore eases her bad conscience and despair by the self-sacrificing work in a field hospital.<br /><br />When war finally is over, once again a crowd of enthusiastic people gathers in order to cheer the victorious soldiers. Again Veronica is among them, forcing her way through a wall of bodies. In her hand she is carrying a bunch of flowers, until she finally has to give it away to complete strangers, for one of the homecomers has just dashed her hopes by confirming the sad certainty of Boris' death.<br /><br />Once again the cranes invade the sky, drawing their wayward lines. But now Veronica is watching them on her own, and the look in her eyes is a different one. She has had to accept the impossibility to live according to preconceived plans, to follow the guidelines of your dreams. For all humans are nothing but helpless puppets hanging on the inscrutable strings of fate.<br /><br />
1	It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.<br /><br />Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.<br /><br />Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.<br /><br />The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another. <br /><br />This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.<br /><br />What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans. <br /><br />On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces. <br /><br />When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.<br /><br />It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.<br /><br />From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity.
1	Unlike the many who have posted here, I'm not movie literate. I stumbled across this movie by accident (channel surfing), and couldn't surf away. This is a truly incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the critics and those on this site have heaped on it. The actors are terrific. Tatiana is beautiful and innocent. Her fiancé Boris is sweet and patriotic. You couldn't help but feel Boris' father's exasperation and sorrow as he upbraids his son for such foolishness as volunteering to serve in the great war.<br /><br />Others have summarized the movie so well, so I'll just mention a couple of scenes that moved me the most. When Boris' brother reveals to his family that he has broken trust with his brother and "has to marry" Tatiana, Tatiana's twisted mouth shows her revulsion at this betrayal (even though her part in the unfaithfulness might have been through rape). You fear that the rest of the movie might right this wrong by visiting just destruction on Tatiana and the brother, or worse, show Tatiana destroyed by an immoral descent into cigarette smoking decadence. Since this isn't "French existential cinema", the latter doesn't happen. Thankfully! <br /><br />Another scene that tears at your heart is when the unnamed "musician" soldier who was saved by Boris returns to tell Boris' father of the death of his son. He unwittingly breaks the news to Tatiana. I can't describe the sorrow of this scene... Still,Tatiana finds finds a straw to grab and hope that Boris will yet come home. The musician actually never saw Boris buried, after all.<br /><br />I won't mention more scenes, but do want to observe that the touches of Soviet political correctness didn't detract at all from the film. Boris' brother is revealed as the piano playing anti-soviet slacker that someone who steals his brother's wife-to-be would have to be. No doubt he gets at least a "tenner" at the conclusion of the film! The ending, when Tatiana finally learns for certain that Boris is dead, still manages to end with cheerfully and full of hope for the future. You don't even want to imagine the tears and catharsis that must have swept through the theater when survivors of that war, with their own losses in mind, first saw this movie.<br /><br />Incredible. Go see it.
1	The aftermath of World War Two almost resulted in the death of Soviet cinema. In the early years of the 1950s, film production came close to a complete standstill {a mere nine feature-films were released in 1951}, and the work of all filmmakers was closely monitored, and often censored, by the government. Following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, filmmakers were given greater artistic freedom with their pictures, though many remained reluctant to challenge the heroic, optimistic and propagandistic stance towards warfare that had been prevalent in previous years. It wasn't until 1957 that director Mikhail Kalatozov and writer Viktor Rozov became bold enough to produce what is widely-considered the first post-Stalin Soviet masterpiece, 'Letyat zhuravli / The Cranes are Flying,' one of the finest depictions of war I've seen from any country or time period. Not only was the film lauded for its artistic brilliance in the Soviet Union, but international recognition was soon to follow, and Kalatozov's film was honoured with the Palm d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival.<br /><br />'The Cranes are Flying' is both an invigorating visual feast and an audacious, humanistic portrayal of war. Unlike many Soviet war-themed films of the time, it was less constrained by the archetypal figure of the traditional war-time hero, and more concerned with the futility, brutality and, indeed, the inevitability of conflict. Love, as a cinematic concept, is too-often idealised as a notion that somehow conquers all and endures endless hardship, and yet the reality is substantially less romantic. In the film, two lovers, Veronika (Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), separated by the advent of the WWII {widely known in the Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945}, pledge to marry after the war, but tragedy denies the couple their wish. Driven to betrayal by the unending torment and uncertainty of waiting, Veronika agrees to wed Boris' cousin, Mark (Aleksandr Shvorin), a handsome but unworthy youth. The film may conclude with the proud victory of the Soviets, and a patriotic flag-waving parade, but the optimism of this sequence is overwhelmingly eclipsed by the bittersweet tragedy of our young female protagonist, who wanders soullessly through the celebrating crowds.<br /><br />Perhaps the most remarkable feature of 'The Cranes are Flying' is Sergei Urusevsky's inspired and dynamic hand-held cinematography, which realistically and dizzily captures the chaos and confusion of war, not necessarily in the hail of gunfire and the cries of dying comrades {in fact, only one of the film's sequences joins Boris on the Eastern Front}, but from the perspective of the family and friends who are left behind. In one particularly impressive, oft-cited long shot, the camera follows Veronika as she frantically searches for Boris in a crowd of departing recruits and their families. The hand-held camera smoothly follows the girl off a bus, jostles through the crowd alongside her - capturing momentary snippets of loved ones saying farewell to their sons and husbands - before unexpectedly craning above the crowd as Veronika disappears into the dust of a passing squadron of army tanks, a breathtaking movement that offers scope and urgency to the dramatic episode. Urusevsky first acquired his filming experience as a military cameraman during the war, and obviously fell in love with the storytelling possibilities of hand-held photography: "The camera," he once declared, "can express what the actor is unable to portray: his inner sensations. The cameraman must act with the actors."
1	This movie won a special award at Cannes for its acting and it's not difficult to see why. (A few spoilers - but for the ending, you'll have to watch the movie!) A simple story - in Moscow on the eve of war between Russia and Germany in WW II Veronika (Tatiana Samoilova) is in love with Boris (Aleksei Batalov) but they have a spat when she learns that he has enlisted in the army. Boris leaves for the front before Veronika can tell him she loves him. Boris is shot but his ultimate fate remains unknown to Veronika or his family. Mark, Boris' cousin, rapes Veronika who feels obligated to marry him. Degraded and demeaned by the cowardly Mark, Veronika clings to the hope that someday Boris will return. Superb camera-work and wonderful set pieces by director Kalatozov. (For anyone interested in film technique another movie by Kalatozov, I AM CUBA, has at least two superb set pieces - one of them a long tracking shot that begins with a funeral procession through the streets of Havana, rises two stories to a cigar factory, tracks though the window and follows the procession down a long, long avenue - all without a cut.) Superb acting, particularly by Samoilova and Vasili Merkuryev (as Boris' uncle) that is made all the more poignant by sheer understatement. A devastatingly romantic movie with a heart-stopping performance by Samoilova. (This movie is frequently linked with the other Russian classic Ballad Of A Soldier.)
1	Russian actress TATIANA SAMOILOVA reminds me so much of the young Audrey Hepburn and the camera in THE CRANES ARE FLYING seems to love her just as much. She is the focal point of a bittersweet war romance against the background of World War II in Moscow.<br /><br />The film is almost poetic in its gorgeous B&W cinematography which was the main reason for watching the film in the first place, since I had never heard of it and decided to give it a try when it aired on TCM.<br /><br />It's a very moving love story about a girl's deep love for a man who is suddenly swept away by his role as a soldier drafted in wartime Russia. She's unable to forget the memory of her romantic attachment to him, but inexplicably marries someone else who has forced himself on her, a pianist who soon realizes that she still loves the soldier she hopes to hear from. Their marriage is a troubled one because she can't let go of her remembrance of a happier time with her soldier sweetheart.<br /><br />By the end of the story, she accepts the idea that he's never going to return and is able to face reality and cope with the situation. There's a very poignant final scene at a train station where arriving soldiers are greeting their loved ones and the tearful girl shares the joy of the returning soldiers by giving some flowers from her bouquet to the joyous families.<br /><br />The stylish and striking camera-work is what carries the film, as well as the honestly played story.<br /><br />Tastefully done, but perhaps the English subtitles didn't tell the whole tale because some of the plot elements seemed a bit blurred to me as if they had been glossed over.<br /><br />Summing up: Easy to see why it won awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Reminded me, in style, of another great Russian film, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER.
1	While watching this film recently, I constantly had to remind myself that it was made in 1957..........and in the USSR! That makes it all the more remarkable. Many of the cinematographic effects in the film seem cliched in 2002, but they were quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released in the US, and I was struck by its originality then. Now just having seen it 40 years later, I have no reason to change my mind.
1	This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him.<br /><br />Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II (and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax.
1	My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it, but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could!
1	I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema! <br /><br />Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but, thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live with her memories of him.<br /><br />The film features some truly amazing camera-work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains!<br /><br />Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) - which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming... <br /><br />The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once on TV accompanied by a feature-length "Making Of"!!
1	A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In "Letyat Zhuravli", she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...<br /><br />In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before "The Star Wars", 41 years before "Titanic", and with a Soviet budget.
1	In Moscow, the young couple Veronika (T. Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov) are in deep love for each other. With the World War II, Boris volunteers to join the army and is sent to the front on the day before Veronika's birthday, and they do not have the chance to say goodbye to each other. While waiting for news from Boris, Veronika is raped by Boris' cousin Mark (A. Shvorin) and they marry each other. However, Veronika does not forget Boris, and keeps waiting for him.<br /><br />"Letyat zhuravli" is an impressive and heartbreaking romance in times of war. The direction is excellent and uses ellipses along the story, inclusive in the capital scene when Veronika is raped by Mark. The camera-work is amazing, with sophisticated planes and angles, and long traveling. The scenes of Veronika in the middle of the tanks, or in the train station with many figurants are awesome. The magnificent cinematography is highlighted by the restored image of the DVD. T. Samojlova has an extremely beautiful face, and a touching and sensitive performance. The speech in the last scene makes another great example of an anti-war movie. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Quando Voam as Cegonhas" ("When Fly the Stork")
1	It does not surprise me that this short (91 minutes) B/W movie that was made 50 years ago in the Soviet Union during the short period called "ottepel'" or "the thaw", has gained so much love and admiration among the movie lovers over the world. It is sublime and beautifully filmed. Some scenes feel like there were made way ahead of their time. Sergei Urusevsky's camera work and creative discoveries were included in the text books and widely imitated. The film tells the moving and timeless story of love destroyed by merciless war but eternally alive in the memory of a young woman. It is also the film about loyalty, memories, ability to live on when it seems there is nothing to live for; it is about forgiveness, and about hope. The film received (absolutely deservingly) the Grand Prix at Cannes Film Festival and Tatiana Samoilova was chosen as a recipient of a special award at Cannes for playing Veronika, the young girl happily in love with the best man in the world in the beginning of the movie. After separation with her beloved who went to the front, the loss of her family in the bomb ride, and the marriage to the man she never loved and only wished he never existed, she turned to the shadow of herself, she became dead inside. Her long journey to redemption, to finally accepting death of her beloved and to learning how to live with it, is a fascinating and heartbreaking one and it simply won't leave any viewer indifferent.<br /><br />For me, the movie is very personal and dear because I was born and grew up in the city where its characters lived and were so happy in the beginning. I walked the same streets, squares, and bridges over the Moskva River. Every family in the former Soviet Union had lost at least one but often more than one family member to a combat or to the concentration camp or to the ghetto or to hunger, cold, and illnesses during WWII and my family is not exception. My mother and grandmother knew the horrors of war and never healing pain of losses not just from the movies and the books. "Cranes are Flying" speaks to me clearly and honestly and touches me very deeply. It is a masterpiece of movie making but it is a part of my life - my background, my memory, and my past.
1	One of those films that I happened across through The Criterion Collection and as usual indulged as a change of pace. That turned out to be a great decision. I was almost mesmerised by the quality of the film, the story it told and the way it was told. The almost minimalist feel to the film with sparse dialogue and almost constant music just added a whole evocative level to the film. This really is a superb film to spend some time with and enjoy.
1	I would like to tell you just a few things before considering seeing this movie. If at one point or another you thought you've seen good camera work, be prepared to be amazed by this movie. For the record, this movie was made in 1957 in Russia, but the technique used here is probably something that we've seen much later in the western world...about 20 years later. The level of emotions through the film varies quite a lot: happiness -love-war- despair-joy, but in the end you remain with something quite unique: the joy of seeing one masterpiece of filmmaking. The young directors from our time should study more this kind of movies and maybe they will be able to create something similar..even though I think movies like this are very hard to come by... If you've seen "I am Cuba" , then this movie would appeal to you very much, but if not, be prepared for a unique experience. The Russian directors have something in common: very small budgets, great actors, and a joy of creating art...and yes, they are able to create more masterpieces than all the western world together. I am not a big fan of Russia, actually I hate everything that's communist, but the film making in that part of the world, manages to create such feelings that are hard to describe.<br /><br />Enjoy it.<br /><br />
1	The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind: the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from 1941-'45.<br /><br />With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated, and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still very fresh and painful.<br /><br />This very black setting strongly contrasts with the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism, weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-squirrel.<br /><br />Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made. <br /><br />
1	Love and war did happen on the other side of the iron curtain and by looking losely at it love was just as strong as in the West and war was often more poignant (should I say more realistic ?).<br /><br />This film is as much about war and love as it is about the Soviet thaw of Mr K's era. It also reminds us than the best war movies were not necessarily made in the 1990's with rivers of hemoglobin and millions of USD spent on special effects and marketed actors.<br /><br />This movie is a classic of Soviet cinema and a outstanding picture of one of the greatest human tragedies : war.<br /><br />
1	If you're looking for a typical war movie, this is not it, so a note to all the testosterone-pumped carnage-craving war buffs out there, don't bother. Although the film is about Russian characters in WWII, don't expect to see any Nazis, cannons, blood, gore, etc. It's not a film about people who cause a war or who fight a war. It's a film about ordinary people who war happens to and the choices they make in dealing with it.<br /><br />Acting, cinematography, writing: all perfect 10s here. You'll certainly appreciate it if you're Russian like me, but even if not, you'll probably love it. If you speak no Russian, look for the RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council) DVD version. It's got subtitles in about 14 different languages, but the English dubbing on this one I'd say is just as good. It's of course not as good as the original Russian track (some stuff is lost in translation), but just as good as the English subtitles. So go check it out, especially if you're studying film in any aspect.
1	1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs, and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died, or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious. <br /><br />During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting, introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic, suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova), reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE in the 40's. <br /><br />This film featured brilliant, breathtaking, and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime, battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film features the famous line, "You can dream when the war is over." In the final sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing "cranes white and gray floating in the sky." <br /><br />The film was released in 1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, "the silence in the theater was profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the doors." <br /><br /> <br /><br />
1	The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others afterwards, as our audience did.<br /><br />The sheer power of the acting performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course, Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast. For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are "senior citizens", the fact that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence<br /><br />How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger.
1	The story told by The Cranes are Flying is not, admittedly, all that original. Young lovers are separated by war; bad things happen to both. We've seen it many times before.<br /><br />Nonetheless, we haven't seen it filmed this well, with bold shots that take liberties to emphasize separation, or destruction, or hopelessness. All the more remarkable coming from the Soviet Union, and reason to conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern-era Soviet cinema.<br /><br />I was reading Chekhov's "Three Sisters" the other day, and chanced upon what may be the meaning of the title of this film. In Act 2, Masha objects to the notion that we must live our lives without meaning or understanding:<br /><br />"MASHA: Surely mankind must believe in something, or at least seek for the truth, otherwise life is just emptiness, emptiness. To live and not to know why the cranes are flying, why children are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must know why it is you live, or everything is trivial - mere pointless nonsense."<br /><br />Likewise, Veronika has a hard time believing that the war, and her and others' sufferings, have been pointless. Better to assign a meaning, to live as if one's life is significant, and not to give in to despair. It is perhaps this thinking that prompts her to her final act in the film.<br /><br />BTW as a minor correction to one other comment here--there may be a pattern of V's in the film, though I hadn't noticed them myself. But the first letter of Veronika's name is not a further instance of this; in the Cyrillic alphabet, her name begins with a letter which looks like an English "B".
1	Having long disdained network television programming, I remember the first time I caught an episode of "Police Squad!". It was totally by accident. It was during the show's initial network run on ABC in early 1982. I am a chronic channel surfer and was flipping the dial one evening when suddenly appeared "Police Squad!"'s opening credit sequence on my TV screen. I immediately recognized it as a sendup of the opening credits of "M-Squad" starring Lee Marvin, one of my all-time favorite cop shows. I stopped surfing. Then of course came headquarters getting shot up, followed by the immortal Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln. By now I was saying to myself "What the heck is THIS??". Then came "special guest star" Georg Stanford Brown getting flattened by a plummeting safe. I was hooked from that moment. The episode was "Ring of Fear/A Dangerous Assignment", with its comic references to "On The Waterfront", and "Muhammed Ali", but most memorable of course were all the sight gags and non sequiturs. Leslie Nielsen and Alan North in their loose parody of Lee Marvin and Paul Newlan of "M Squad" were an absolute riot. "Finally", I said to myself, "A network television program truly worth watching!!!". Wouldn't you know it would be canceled just a few weeks later. Leave it to the networks -- I should have known. Anyway, I just bought the DVD collection of all six episodes and they are just as funny today as they were 27 years ago. The "Naked Gun" movies were terrific as well, but I really missed Alan North (he was so good as Ed Hocken), Peter Lupus as Nordberg (what were they thinking casting OJ in that part?), and especially William Duell's "Johnny" the shoeshine guy. Great stuff.
1	Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the words: "Police Squad - in color", you were schocked to see that this in no way was an ordinary sitcom.<br /><br />Also to kill off a "Guest Star" and then never refer to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons.<br /><br />The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a joke.<br /><br />The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva.<br /><br />There were some tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity. That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh, well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time you were knee deep in tears of laughter.<br /><br />Leslie Nielsen was fortunate that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though.
1	Two years after the success of 'Airplane', Jim Abrahams and Jerry & David Zucker created this brilliant sitcom starring the great Leslie Nielsen as plain clothed detective 'Frank Drebin'. Also in the cast was Alan North as 'Captain Ed Hocken', Ed Williams as 'Ted Olsen' and William Duell as 'Johnny The Shoe Shine Boy'. 'Police Squad!' featured unashamedly corny jokes and clever visual gags playing in the background. Each episode would conclude with a mock freeze frame in which the characters in frame stand completely still. One of the best 'freeze frame' sequences saw one of the characters pouring coffee into a cup while standing still, causing the cup to overflow! Guest stars were killed off in the opening titles, one included Georg Stanford Brown being crushed by a falling safe! Despite gaining positive reviews and much critical acclaim, 'Squad!' only lasted for six episodes before being cancelled. This didn't mean the end though, five years later the show was transferred to the big screen for the first in the trilogy of the 'Naked Gun' films.
1	I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was shot twice. <br /><br />But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was different from the one shown on the screen. <br /><br />Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda. <br /><br />Even though Police Squad! had a short life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular closing gag. Freeze the ending right here.
1	A criminally short lived show that went on to spawn three movie spin-offs (Naked Gun 1, 2 & 3), this is fast-paced, in your face, rapid fire comedy that has more hits than misses. <br /><br />Leslie Nielsen plays Detective Lieutenant Sergeant Frank Drebin, an incompetent Detective who bumbles and fumbles his way through cases, with the capable assistant of his boss, Capt. Ed Hocken.<br /><br />The story lines are spurious, at best, but it's deliberate, as the goodness here lies not in the storytelling, but in the weaving of a constant flurry of jokes along with some genuinely weird and wonderful characters. <br /><br />The jokes themselves come in many forms, be it wordplay, slapstick, puns or background gags, most of them hitting the spot, though some fall a little flat. It's inevitable with this 'gag every few seconds' approach that some will fail, but the ratio is good. <br /><br />The characters are a delight. From the guest star of the week dying in the opening seconds of every episode, the laboratory scientist who appears to be conducting cruel and unusual experiments on children to the shoe-shine who is some form of oracle, the writing is witty and sharp as a cutlass. <br /><br />Though not especially successful at the time, it rapidly developed a cult following, many blaming the shows' relative lack of success on being way ahead of its time and too sophisticated for the target audience, chief amongst them none other than Matt 'The Simpsons' Groening: and he should know. <br /><br />Dated by todays standards, if you can see through that aspect, you're in for a treat.
1	The inspiration for the "Naked Gun" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always having to solve an absurd case. Like "Airplane!" and the movies based on the series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely the "yes it is" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something keeps moving.<br /><br />It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny.<br /><br />*Before "Airplane!", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like "Forbidden Planet", "Harlow" and "The Poseidon Adventure". As late as 1987 he co-starred in "Nuts" alongside Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first "Naked Gun" movie it's been all comedy all the time.
1	When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome, Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy show.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame. Classic!<br /><br />The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, "Cigarette?" and the person replies, "Yes. I know.") I think they used it too many times by whatever.<br /><br />Good acting, good gags, great show!<br /><br />7/10
1	I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's) their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete with bearded host.<br /><br />Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot, macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here) has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force, perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes.<br /><br />The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely Different.....<br /><br />If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this. <br /><br />I always liked the series better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J.
1	The creative team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker had their roots in improvisational theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, I believe it was. They had a group called 'Kentucky Fried Theatre'(or something similar.) They put a bunch of their set pieces onto celluloid as'KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE'(1977), which was long, irreverent, sophomoric and really funny.<br /><br />They followed up with the very popular, AIRPLANE! (1980), which really put them on the map. In it, they took some rather well known veteran actors in Robert Stack and (especially) Leslie Nielsen, and putting them in prominent roles, proceeded to parody every cliché of every aviation film since the days of John Wayne's (Batjac)Production of THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954).* Pockets stuffed with cash and now having been noticed, the trio worked out a deal with Pramount Television and the American Broadcasting Company TV Network to do a half hour comedy spoof of the nearly countless Police Crime Drama show that have come and gone on our television screens over the years. Remembering the fine job that Mr. Leslie Nielsen had turned in on AIRPLANE!, he was cast in the lead.<br /><br />As Sgt/Lt./Captain Frank Drebbin (the rank designation switch being one of their comic bits),he presided over a great series of successive puns, sight gags, non sequitors, and overblown police/crime clichés.All of these strung together by some,seemingly standard scripts. Added to this is overly dramatic opening narration, voiced over information contradicting the visual printed info. They always used this in giving the title of the episode titles, where voice and printed titles never matched.<br /><br />They had a great musical score, which even though being somewhat exaggerated, would have passed as theme and incidental music in a straight drama.The musical score, the opening titles and format of having the episodes divided into Act I, Act II, Epilogue, etc., were all part of obvious, but affectionate, ribbing of Q.M. (Quinn Martin) Productions. (They even had the same announcer as did the real Q.M.'s.)<br /><br />One thing that this all too short of a series did not have was a technically augmented audience laughter. And, boy they sure didn't need any phony tract. The nature of the spoof was such that it demanded the viewer's close, almost undivided attention, and that proved to be the ultimate reason behind POLICE SQUAD's downfall.<br /><br />In regards to the series cancellation,an ABC Executive explained that the episodes "...called for too much attention on the part of the viewer." So, isn't that what one would want?<br /><br />So, after only 6 wonderfully wacky, hilarious episodes,off to the afterlife of series cancellation went POLICE SQUAD!, only to be reborn in THE NAKED GUN trilogy, made for the big screen in movie houses. Once again, they did quite well at the Box Office. Oh well, TV's loss is Cinema's gain, thanks to you Mr. Idiot TV Exec!<br /><br />* THE HIGH AND MIGHTY was produced by the Duke's own Batjac Productions and released by Warner Brothers. It was unavailable for quite a number of years and finally, Mr. Wayne's family made arrangements to release it to television and to video.
1	"The Dresser" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to "Terms of Endearment"-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much taste).<br /><br />Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production of "King Lear"; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end. Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and soul of the film.<br /><br />Grade: A
1	After reading over all these reviews I'm very surprised to see that no one has even once noted that this show was based on the 1957 to 1960 NBC cop show "M Squad" starring Lee Marvin, i read reviews comparing it to "Dragnet" and some of the Quinn Martin police shows, but if you watch M Squad you'll see it was based on it. In the late 1958 episodes of M Squad onwards, you'll see Lee Marvin who plays Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger get out of his car and then hes shot at,and he shoots back, the beginning of Police Squad is basically the same ( including the Jazz music) and then Lee Marvin narrates what goes on, (Im Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger,M Squad,a special department of the Chicago police) and in Police Squad Leslie Neilsen does the same (Im Detective Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad, a special division of the Police Department) and so on, in one of the M Squad episodes there's even the Johnny the shoeshine guy character and in a M Squad episode entitled " More Deadly" there's a Police Squad episode entitled "A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)" which is the same story!
1	Police Squad! (1982) was a funny show that ended too soon. But I guess it had it's run before it got too repetitive and unfunny like so many American television shows. The geniuses behind this funny show were the team of Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker. Every since his straight act in the comedy hit AIRPLANE!, Leslie Nielsen has found a new career as a comedian. In this short lived t.v. series he had the chance to play the straight man in a wacky comedy once more. The bizarre titles to each episode gave away the ending. But Lt. Drebrin (Leslie Nielsen) got into so many weird cases that they have to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />Tooo bad they never released this on D.V.D. If a show needed to be re-released it would have to be this one. A whole new generation is waiting to see this show!<br /><br />Highly recommended!
1	The funniest show ever on TV, albeit the humor is not for everyone. I realize it would have been hard to keep the show fresh if it had ran longer, but it's a shame only six episodes were filmed. The gags fly rapidly from the opening credits until the very end, when you would see Drebin and his boss, Ed Hocken, pretending to be in freeze frame as the closing credits rolled, during which the criminal (still moving) would see everyone else motionless and try to escape. In another episode, the building started collapsing around them as Drebin and Hocken remained in freeze mode.<br /><br />Leslie Nielsen was comedic brilliance as Frank Drebin and the perfect fit for this show … how he managed to keep a straight face through some of this is beyond me. Because the jokes and sight gags came so often and quick, you can watch the episodes a 2nd and 3rd time and catch things you missed the first time. If you're like me, you can watch them over and over and still find yourself laughing. Even the jokes that made no sense nor seemingly had any reason to them, such as the "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln" tag-line in the opening announcement, somehow worked … perhaps they were thrown in there precisely for that reason.<br /><br />Cleverly spoofing the old Quinn Martin detective/cop shows of the 1970s, Police Squad would return from commercial break with the words "Act Two" appearing on the screen, which was immediately followed by "Yankees One" or some other quip. On the opening credits, the episode's title would appear on the screen, but the announcer would utter a completely different title. My favorite jokes and lines from this series are way too numerous to list, but one of my favorites is when Drebin asks a down-on-his-luck boxer who has previously tanked fights, "Do you think you can beat the Champ?" The boxer responds, "I can take him blindfolded!" To which Drebin responds back, "But what if he's not blindfolded?" A minute later, in reference to the boxer's small, dingy apartment, Drebin tells him, "I'm going to help you get out of this sewer." The next thing you see, Drebin is popping up through a manhole cover on the street! In another episode, Drebin and Hocken are questioning a bombing suspect's flimsy alibi. Drebin, not believing him, says, "Alright, let's say you did go the movies." After a slight pause, Drebin, Hocken, and the suspect all look at the camera and in unison say, "You did go the movies." A few moments later, when Drebin is forced to let the suspected bomber walk free due to lack of evidence, he storms away and angrily yells, "Tell that bomber to take off!" What's seen next is a cop giving the thumbs-up signal to a WWII-style plane on a runway right outside the building! While there were many classic Drebin quotes, one particularly memorable one was, "Sorry to bother you Mrs. Twice. We would have come earlier, but your husband wasn't dead then." Another classic was, "I'm a locksmith … and, I'm a locksmith." When a visibly shaken kidnap victim's father asks Drebin, "What I do I do?" … Drebin, in classic deadpan fashion, responds back, "Well, as I understand it, you're in the textile business." As I said, the humor is not for everyone … many people simply will not "get" it. During the show's brief run, I remember the reaction being very mixed. Some people thought it was absolutely hysterical and one of the funniest things around, while others thought it was the stupid and unfunny. For me, Police Squad, even 20+ years later, is the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV. For younger viewers who enjoy this type of humor but who have never seen Police Squad because they were too young when the series initially aired, I highly recommend. I found the six episodes to be even funnier than the subsequent "Naked Gun" movies.
1	Two years after 'Airplane!' took off, Jim Abrahams, Jerry and David Zucker cast one of its stars - Leslie Nielsen - in this hilarious television series, a glorious take-off of old U.S. detective shows such as 'Dragnet'. Nielsen played Frank Drebin, America's answer to 'Inspector Clouseau'. It had the same style of humour as 'Airplane!'; clever visual gags in the background, unnoticed absurdities, and recurring characters such as Johnny the shoe-shine boy who seems to know everything about everything. Guest-stars ( including William Shatner! ) were killed off in the opening credits. 'Police Squad' was the first U.S. sitcom since 'Batman' to lack a laugh track. Many have lamented the fact that only six episodes were made, but I think it was about right. The concept could never have sustained a full 24-episode run. Five years later, 'Police Squad' made a successful transfer to the big screen, when the first of the 'Naked Gun' trilogy was released. Jim, Jerry, David, and Leslie had the last laugh.
1	I still count "Police Squad!" as the absolute funniest TV show of the 1980s. Somewhere, on BetaMax no less, I have all six episodes. I knew that a show this good wouldn't last and that I had to preserve it for myself. How stupid was ABC? They were quoted as saying that viewers didn't know that "Police Squad!" was a comedy because it had no laugh track! Right! When Drebin has a line like "You take chances just getting up in the morning, driving to work, or sticking your face in a fan.", how can THAT be comedy!?!? I've seen every episode at least ten times and still see something new I missed before. Even the deep backgrounds always have gags ongoing. Don't miss it if you have chance to see an episode, but if you're reading this then you probably already have copies squirreled away someplace as I do.
1	I watched this series after I had seen the Naked Gun films. I found it much better than the films, and I thought the films were great! This series literally glues you to the television set in anticipation of the next pun, sight gag, or funny situation (the all night wicker place, club flamingo). I don't think I've ever laughed as hard at a TV series in my life, even after seeing the movies first and thus knowing some of the jokes. I think its a shame that only six episodes were produced, but I agree that the writers would be very hard pressed to maintain this level of comedy for any more episodes. Overall, the series is a must see for those who like puns, bad jokes, and slapstick sight-gags.
1	The creative team that brought us Police Squad - and the Naked Gun derived from it - said in interview that they were told by their network contact that the show would be canceled, after their delivery of the first episode. Basically, the show was never given any chance. Typical Hollywood. The contact apparently told the team that the problem with the show was that, for the show to be funny, the viewer would actually need to watch it; most shows are presented on TV with the understanding that the viewer needed to get up and miss a few minutes while getting food, or going to the toilet, etc.<br /><br />The humor of the show is extremely dry (it uses no laugh-track), and the universe the characters inhabit is one in which anything can happen, regardless of logic, as long as it was totally unbelievable; so, for instance in one episode a surgeon has to bribe an informant on the street in order to get a tip on heart surgery.<br /><br />Those familiar with the Naked Gun films should be warned that there are a number of interesting disjunctions between the show and the films. In the films, Nielsen developed a particular "take" approach - that is, eyes widened when confronted with the unexpected. This doesn't happen in the show, where Nielsen's Drebin is the center around which the rest of the universe revolves - nothing is unexpected to him. Also, there are no romances in the show, and no parodies of MTV. Finally, the show takes certain risks that the films avoid; in the first episode, Drebin, to "re-enact the crime", has a squad of homicide detectives shoot each other from a number of different angles - ballistics the hard way. This is actually a risky bit of humor, since we need to accept that it's perfectly normal for policemen to kill each other while investigating a crime, for no other reason than experimentation. This sort of thing rarely happens in the films.<br /><br />Taken individually, each of the episodes is actually funnier than any one of the Naked Gun films, since they are both more compact (more happens in a shorter time-frame), yet more leisurely paced (there's not the rush for a punch-line as sometimes happens in the films). There are some inconsistencies that happen in the films (primarily "2" and "3") that never occur in the show's shorter time-frame.<br /><br />Of course, there's no doubt that Naked Gun (the first film) is one of the great comedies of theatrical cinema. And if you watch the TV show episode after episode in one sitting, the dry quality of the humor might wear away one's tolerance.<br /><br />None the less, it would be useful to have a DVD of this, and watch an episode a day for a few weeks - If laughter has, as some claim, medicinal value, watching this show is good for one's health.
1	Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?...
1	To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.
1	One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program. He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. '<br /><br />With TV shows like MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could forget "... the part of town known as "Little Italy"..." with the coliseum in the background.<br /><br />Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then again being in the theater you were a captive audience.<br /><br />Leslie also said the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get the jokes.<br /><br />Well that's just my 2 cents.
1	What is worth mentioning that is omitted in the other reviews I have read here, is the subtext of how the law shaped the lives and behaviour of gays in the era portrayed in the film. While Courtenay's character is evidently gay, he is not the only one: the often talked about Mr. Davenport-Scott is the other, and the reason that he is never seen, the reason alluded to that he has disappeared seems to be that he has been detained by the police for homosexual activity - a criminal offense in England at the time.<br /><br />We can read under the surface that this recent event has unsettled Norman, Courtenay's character: and we can also see in a passing remark by Oxenby, the Edward Fox character, the quick renunciation of any connection to such a person when the law is involved: the fear of association affects many of the characters, and is part of the portrait the film paints of a time and the people who inhabit it. The abandonment of Courtenay at the end by Sir has been anticipated all the way through, if this subtext is included: it also makes sense of both the otherwise inexplicable omission of his Dresser from the list of those he gives thanks to. The flamboyance combined with the fear of exposure produces the combination of yearning and fear that Courtenay has to 'step into the footlights', as he does when he makes the announcement about the imminent air raids, a scene that would otherwise be gratuitous, but that is both a symbolic and literal depiction of the man's inner torment.<br /><br />So while the drama is of the decline of Finney's Sir, a great deal of the tragedy of the film and play comes from the 'fatal flaw' of Courtenay's gayness, and makes this a film about him, as the title suggests.<br /><br />The art direction, pacing and cinematic style of this film seem to come from another time, more distant than the eighties and, in some ways, even than the second world war. The implicit portrait of a society still clinging to an older moral order, and the sympathy of the character racked and ruined by the cruelties of that order, of necessity trapped in the enclosed world of the theatre; and the knowledge we have of how much of it all would be swept away after the war makes this film all the more poignant, for all its flaws.
1	To be brief, the story is paper thin and you can see the ending coming from a mile away, but Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, and an impossibly young Phil Silvers keep the movie afloat throughout and at times lift it right up into the air. A few of the songs are terrible clunkers ("Poor John" is a train wreck) but most of them are great fun, and the scene of Hayworth performing on the absurdly huge set for Kelly's rival has to be seen to be believed. Another treat is the perfect faux-NYC sets in the best Hollywood tradition.<br /><br />Another attraction, if you consider such things attractions, is the howlingly awful male "chivalry" toward women. The oily leering and transparent obsequiousness that passed for male charm back then (in the movies, at least) is presented in its most lurid form here. Some of the men are about like a cartoon wolf.<br /><br />One minor disappointment is Eve Arden trapped in a role so minor that she barely has a chance to do anything. I can imagine a lot of potential comic interplay between her and Silvers--a missed opportunity.
1	The most notable feature of this film is the chemistry between the actors, the sense of camaraderie in their dialogue and dances. This typical rising-star musical has an overworked plot, even for 1944, but because of the actors it's still fun to watch. Hayworth isn't even that much of a dancer, but she has a lot of 'inexperienced' charm that fits her character. Kelly plays his usual caring authoritarian role while Silvers provides plenty of self-deprecation and laughs. The movie can also be very serious at times. Not a must-see, but recommended if you like the actors.
1	Although the plot of Cover Girl is very flimsy and tired, it does serve well enough as an anchor for the Kern and Gershwin musical numbers. Following her signature role in Gilda, Hayworth opted to star in this musical that seems tailor made for her. Besides looking as gorgeous as ever, she impresses with her dancing as well. Gene Kelly, who was on loan to Columbia from MGM, matches her in dancing and the sequence where he cavorts with his own shadow was nicely done. The supporting characters were also competently acted. Personally, I didn't enjoy Cover Girl as much as the musicals Hayworth made with Fred Astaire. However, Cover Girl is still very entertaining and easy to recommend. My score: 7/10.
1	I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.<br /><br />This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).<br /><br />Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.<br /><br />But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.<br /><br />Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.<br /><br />I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.<br /><br />The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus!
1	Although I'm not crazy about musicals, COVER GIRL is a delight for classic movie buffs and especially for fans of Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. The film may be dated by today's standards and the story and songs may be nothing special, but the musical numbers are magnificently staged and there's a terrific cast to go with the film. Plus, the film is a worthy introduction for fans of Rita Hayworth...she's simply breathtaking in glorious Technicolor.<br /><br />Despite Jerome Kern's collaboration with the film, his music here is nowhere near as special or memorable as his songs in SWING TIME (1936), yet the songs serve the film well. The dancing is nothing short of excellent, especially coming from Gene Kelly's solo number and my favorite musical number, "Alter-Ego Dance." The amusing Phil Silvers nearly steals the film as Kelly's partner. Otto Kruger, Eve Arden, and Edward Brophy give good performances in their dramatic supporting roles. And Rita plays a sweet, charming girl here; a role that's a far cry from her femme fatale babes in films like BLOOD AND SAND (1941).<br /><br />All in all, this is a delightful film that's worth watching even if you're not big on musicals. Yet the film's music could have been more memorable if only my favorite period songwriters, Irving Berlin or Cole Porter, wrote the songs for this film. However, it's the glorious Technicolor cinematography and the imaginative dancing that are the real treats of the film's production.<br /><br />While I was watching Rita Hayworth do her stuff, I don't think I've ever seen a more beautiful or graceful redhead dance on the screen since I saw Moira Shearer in Michael Powell's masterpiece, THE RED SHOES (1948). Just watch Rita in COVER GIRL and fall in love with her.
1	Though I strongly feel that SITR is the best Gene Kelly movie, but this a pretty good one. I liked the music and the dancing and the ending on how Gene got the girl. My favorite part though without a doubt is Gene's dance with his alter ego. I love watching two Gene Kelly's for the price of one. It shows what talent Mr. Kelly really was. It is a movie that I think that everyone should watch at least once in their life time. So you have not seen it go out and find to watch it today! I'm sure that everyone out there has a Gene Kelly friend that has this movie in their collection. So go over to their house and pop some popcorn and enjoy!
1	This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly how it turned out.<br /><br />Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the "wrong side of the tracks" in '40s films) whose star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely, and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced and lost Rusty's grandmother.<br /><br />The plot revolves around Danny cutting Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because, as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind. There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well.<br /><br />Kelly does the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his character lends it a believable and almost wistful air.<br /><br />Kelly's character in the 1980 "Xanadu" also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended.
1	Another great musical from Hollywoods Golden Age! I liked this movies story about a trio of friends who are performers at a small nightclub that is far from Broadway and all its glitter. Although not the big time they are very content with their lives and the small club where they perform. Gene Kelly plays the owner of the small club and is also the boyfriend of one of its dancers, Rita Hayworth who happens to garner some attention when she's given an opportunity to be on a cover of a magazine. Trouble begins for Gene Kelly as his girlfriend is now the talk of the town. Phil Silvers plays one of the three friends and does a good job. Of course there is the music and the dancing. One dance performance by Gene Kelly stands out. He is walking along the street at night alone and he see his reflection in a shop window. His reflection soon starts dancing along with him in the streets, great cinematography. Don't miss this one, great entertainment.
1	Long ago and far away they knew how to make a musical and "Cover Girl" is no exception to the rule.<br /><br />A story of a dancer in a nightclub who becomes a cover girl and famous. The old adage applies here- that happiness and fame always don't mix.<br /><br />The dance routines are marvelously choreographed. What dancing and chemistry between Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly.<br /><br />Otto Kruger is the older gentleman who discovers Hayworth, when he sees her picture that shows a strong resemblance to the woman who left him at the aisle-Hayworth's grandmother Maribel.<br /><br />A jealous reaction by Kelly drives Rusty (Hayworth) into the arms of Broadway producer Lee Bowman.<br /><br />The picture is basically history repeating itself at the end.<br /><br />To add to the glory of this fine film, there is the always wise-cracking Eve Arden and the hilarious Phil Silvers, appropriately named Genius in the film.
1	One of my favorites non-MGM musicals, it's a classic!> Rita Hayworth is in top form, her beauty leaps out of the screen. Gene Kelly shows off his dancing skills and introduces to musicals his edgy and innovative choreography that eventually would change the way musicals are choreograph. Phil Silvers is the perfect second bananas, and Eve Arden injects this movie with a lot of class.<br /><br /> The structure is so theatrical that one has to wonder why, in this era where major Broadway shows come from the movies, Cover Girl hasn't been adapted to theatre.
1	Anyone who appreciates fine acting and ringing dialogue will love<br /><br />this film. Taken from Ronald 'Taking Sides' Harwood, it's a funny<br /><br />and ultimately excoriating analysis of a relationship between two<br /><br />very 'actorly' types. Albert Finney is sublime as the despotic<br /><br />Shakespearean actor who barely notices the world war raging<br /><br />around him, so intent is he on the crumbling fortunes of his theatre<br /><br />company and his own psychological and emotional breakdown.<br /><br />Tom Courtenay is matchless as Norman, the 'Dresser' of the title,<br /><br />whose apparent devotion turns out to be anything but selfless.<br /><br />Really a must see.
1	In Brooklyn, the nightclub dancer Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) has a simple but happy life dancing in the McGuire's, owned by her boyfriend Danny (Gene Kelly). Rusty, Danny and Genius (Phil Silvers) have a ritual on Friday nights: they order oysters in a bar, trying to find a pearl. The life of Rusty changes when she participates and wins a contest to be the cover page of the Vanity magazine. She is invited to work in a huge theater in Broadway, whose owner proposes her. She loses her happiness and starts drinking in her new life style, missing the love of Danny and her old friends. 'Cover Girl' is a delightful romantic comedy, very naive and having magnificent parts, such as the beauty and talented Rita Hayworth dancing, singing and acting; Gene Kelly, specially in two scenes, dancing with himself and with Rusty and Genius on the street; the songs and the choreography of the dances are also spectaculars. Danny, the character of Gene Kelly, is almost nasty with his chauvinist behavior. Rita Hayworth surprised me with her talent: I found her amazing in 'Gilda', but she is stunning in 'Cover Girl'. In accordance with the information on the cover of the VHS, 'Cover Girl' was the first musical where the songs were part of the plot, giving continuity to the story, instead of just being 'thrown' in the movie. My sixteen years old son saw this movie with a friend of the same age in a recent Gene Kelly festival and they loved 'Cover Girl', therefore I dare to say that this classic is recommended to any movie lover and not only to the old generations. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Modelos' ('Models')
1	Rita Hayworth lights up the screen in this fun, fancy and delightful musical starring Gene Kelly. Rita plays nightclub dancer Rusty Parker who has dreams to be a successful Broadway star. Unfortunately, her career is getting no where in Danny McGuire's Night Club. When one of her fellow dancers says she's going to enter a Cover Girl contest, she decides to follow her dreams and enters. She reminds the publisher of her Grandma, who he was deeply in love with many years ago. But when she finds this success, her boyfriend is not happy about it.<br /><br />I had never seen Rita before this, and I am so glad I did! She has such a scene presence and is a very good actress. There are some good numbers in here, not the best of any musical but they are melodic and good to listen to. One thing I didn't like was Gene Kelly's character. He should have supported his girlfriend! But anyway, that's perhaps the only criticism I have about this movie. Cover Girl is a glorious, fluffy film - perfect escapism. Not everyone's ideal movie, but a wonderful movie nonetheless, due to Rita Hayworth's star power. Great movie, truly impressed.
1	I really like this film because of all the stars and the dancing and the story that goes along with it. Rita Hayworth was at her most glamorous in this musical and the costumes were gorgeous. Although a musical, I thought Rita Hayworth did a fine performance of dramatic acting in this film as well. As far as her dancing, I think she was excellent. Even Betty Grable pretty much endorsed Rita's dancing in this film as she commented that Rita danced rings around her own dancing and let's face it, Betty Grable was an excellent dancer. The cinematography and vivid colors are also noted. Rita wants to be a cover girl for a magazine but she's also in love with her mentor played by Gene Kelly. Does she leave Kelly to fulfill her dream and bypass love and Broadway stardom or does she stick around to find that unique pearl that will change her life forever? You'll have to watch the film to find out!
1	A fantastic musical starring Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth. He owns a nightclub where she dances. She's no star yet, but she gets a big break when she's chosen as a cover girl for Vanity, whose owner was actually in love with her grandmother. When he sees the resemblance, he picks her right away for a contest his maganzine is running. Hayworth's newfound fame at first works wonders for Kelly's club, but her star rises so quickly and so high up that his grasp on her begins to falter. This isn't the most original of plots, but the two leads really make it work. It also helps that the screenplay is great. Kelly's not yet at his peak, especially his peak as an actor. His dancing, however, wow. Hayworth is the star, but Kelly claims the film's most memorable moment as he dances passionately with his own reflection. It's obviously a take-off of Fred Astaire's shadow dancing in Swing Time, but I think Kelly one-ups it, which is hardly believable. In fact, this has got to be the most amazing dance sequence in film history, save perhaps the finale of An American in Paris several years later. The rest of the songs are also excellent, and the musical numbers are even better. Too bad Rita didn't sing her own songs (well, she may have a couple of them, as her singing voice seemed to be different sometimes). Her dancing is wonderful, as is the rest of her acting. It's hard not to love her in anything. She's really one of the few truly beautiful women from the classic era. Not plastic like many of them; no, you can really see the warmth in that woman. Her smile is so disarming. Phil Silvers has the role as Kelly's best friend, and he is also very funny. The trio of Kelly-Hayworth-Silvers is obviously the kernel which became the Kelly-Reynolds-O'Connor trio in Singin' in the Rain eight years afterwards. One of the biggest musical numbers in the film seems almost completely pilfered with the "Good Morning" number in Singin'. I do think Singin' in the Rain is the better film, as Cover Girl is a little rough around the edges. This roughness, though, just adds to the charm. There are aspects of this film that beat Singin' in the Rain, and even An American in Paris. For instance, the central relationship is more emotionally involving. Instead of the dominant older man chasing the little girl (Leslie Caron and Debbie Reynolds were just teenagers, after all), we have a very nice relationship with two people who seem more like equals. There is no chasing around - an aspect that does unfortunately turn a lot of the best musicals a little sour, you have to admit. Kelly and Hayworth are a couple from the start, and when that begins to fray, I really felt it. 9/10.
1	This has got to be one of the better post-Astaire musicals made by Columbia. Produced by Arthur Schwartz and directed by vet Charles Vidor, this picture really put Gene Kelly on the map and cemented Rita Hayworth's reputation as cinema's premier female dance partner. She plays a bit of a dual role here since she performs contemporary 1940s numbers with Gene and co-star Phil Silvers, but also puts her in the role of her grandmother, a nightclub performer in the late 19th Centry.<br /><br />The music should also be singled out because this was I believe the last project that the legendary Jerome Kern (most famous today for "Old Man River" and "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes") worked on, and his lyricist was the equally legendary Ira Gershwin. They supplied a score that is full of charm and characterization. The music for the historical sequences is especially noteworthy because it's so perfectly styled in the early 20th Century idiom that was Kern's original period. It's a bit like picking up a record from one of your favorite bands from the 1970s and hearing them do a song in the original style of that time.<br /><br />The story is pretty inconsequential, which is fine with me because this film is as close an approximation as you will ever be likely to see of the 1930s/40s golden age of Broadway musical comedy style on film. Even the 1940s war propaganda aspects of the film's music give it extra charm as the talented trio sing "make way for tomorrow" and even humorously poke fun at America's enemies and use period slang such as referring to "gremlins".<br /><br />Probably the most memorable performance in the film is Kelly's dance to the "Alter-Ego Dance", which found him arguing with and then dancing with himself as a metaphorical image of the battle of the conscience. This prefigures much of his later work and also stands an effective and memorable scene in and of itself.<br /><br />Fans will want to seek this out for various reasons -- Kelly fans will see this as a rare chance to see him outside of the confines of MGM with a different set of co-stars and music superior to his usual MGM material. Hayworth fans will want to see Rita in glorious color at the peak of her fame and ability. And fans of classic Broadway musicals will definitely want to hear Kern's final score and marvel at the quality of Gershwin's lyrics and the compatibility of their styles. This is a definite gem in the crown of Columbia's musical program.
1	Rita Hayworth is right there where she should be - as a "Cover Girl" in this 1944 Technicolor film also starring Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden, Lee Bowman, and Otto Kruger. Rita plays a beautiful showgirl, Rusty, working at a small club owned by the man she loves, Danny (Kelly). Each Friday they go out for oysters with Genius (Silvers), the club comedian. They all hate oysters, but they're looking for a pearl. When they find one, all three of them will have good luck, they believe.<br /><br />Rusty auditions and wins the role of cover girl for a magazine - she starts off ahead of the other contestants because the magazine owner (Kruger) sees a resemblance between Rusty and the girl he once loved, who turns out to be Rusty's grandmother. Once she becomes the cover girl, the world opens up for her and her dreams of appearing on Broadway come true. Danny wants her to have her success, but at the same time realizes he's lost her.<br /><br />"Cover Girl" has exuberant dance numbers and songs by Jerome Kern, with Rita dubbed by Martha Mears. Rita is at her best playing both Rusty in the present and her grandmother in the past. For such a sexy, desirable, gorgeous woman, she was apparently very insecure and always under the thumb of domineering men. None of this ever showed on screen, nor did the fact that she didn't want to be a movie star. She is one of the true goddesses and brought everything she did to life. Gene Kelly is in a serious role here, but gets plenty of chances to dance and sing. Phil Silvers is very amiable and funny as the in-house comic and best friend.<br /><br />This is a very good movie with no dull spots. The only problem I had is the idea that Rusty has to choose between a successful career and the man she loves. When supermodel Jinx Falkenberg, who plays herself in the film, speaks of getting married, she's warned by her boss not to, that she's too necessary to the modeling business. We're not told if Rusty continues with her career or goes back to work at Danny's - but all signs seemed to point toward the Brooklyn club. Why couldn't she have had both? Nevertheless, you can't beat "Cover Girl" for top entertainment, beautiful color, lovely music, great energy, fine performances, and its most fabulous asset, the glorious Rita Hayworth.
1	This is one of the best musicals of the 1940s. The glorious Technicolor shows off Rita Hayworth's beauty and spectacular hair. She should have made more movies in color, but then Columbia was hardly in a position to splash out money for Technicolor spectaculars.<br /><br />Rita is a WOW as Rusty Parker - she more than keeps up with Gene in some of the most sparkling numbers ever. She also looked beautiful in turn of the century gowns, so she was given a chance to play her own grandmother.<br /><br />The film opens with "The Show Must Go On" - it looks great to me - but Danny McGuire (Gene Kelly) is not impressed. His motto is work, work, work!!! One of the dancers, Maurine (Lesley Brookes) is determined to better herself and is going to audition for Vanity's Golden Wedding Cover Girl Competition. Rusty just happens to find herself at the auditions as well. In a very funny scene Maurine has just had a so so audition and seeing Rusty, gives her a few tips on how to impress the judges!!! "Don't be shy and demure - chatter and sparkle". Rusty does so with gusto!!!<br /><br />They decide on Maurine and go to the show to see her but John Coudair (Otto Kruger) sees Rusty - she reminds him of someone from his past. Cornelia (Eve Arden) is still having nightmares over Rusty's audition. "Whose Complaining" features Genius (Phil Silvers) and the dancers, dressed up as working girls - (Rusty is a cabbie).<br /><br />John is remembering a long lost love (Rusty's grandmother, Maribelle Hicks) the first time he saw her singing "A Sure Thing" - set at the races. Meanwhile Danny, Rusty and Genius are looking for pearls at their local diner. They then launch into the happiest song of the 1940s (in my opinion) - "Make Way For Tomorrow".<br /><br />"Put Me to the Test" is a spirited song and dance number featuring Danny and Rusty. In the meantime Rusty has been chosen Cover Girl and Danny McGuires' is the place to be seen. Lee Bowman appears as Danny's romantic rival and puts a damper on things. Lee Bowman is probably the most boring leading man ever - so Danny never needs to worry.<br /><br />Rusty (dubbed by Martha Mears) sings "Long Ago and Far Away" and it is danced beautifully by Danny and Rusty. The gowns that Rita wears are stunning. Travis Banton and Gwen Wakeling designed them. Danny wants the best for Rusty but is afraid he will lose her. Gene Kelly is also fantastic in the "Alter Ego" number where he dances with himself.<br /><br />"Poor John" is another look back to the turn of the century - it was written in 1906 and is an extremely funny song poking fun at rich relations - Hayworth looks gorgeous in an amazingly quaint outfit. Look for Al Norman in both "Poor John" and "A Sure Thing". He was an amazing eccentric dancer, who appeared in several early musicals, including "King of Jazz" and "Paramount on Parade". He was easy to spot.<br /><br />The "Cover Girl" dance is just wonderful. Rita was so talented - beautiful and a great dancer. After a bevy of beautiful models parade through covers of America's top magazines, Rusty bursts through in a beautiful gold gown dancing down a ramp to the very catchy "Cover Girl" song. Gosh I just LOVE this movie!!!!<br /><br />Highly Recommended.
1	This is a very enjoyable, fluffy, glamorous musical from the 40's. 'Cover Girl' made Rita Hayworth (formerly the dark-haired Latin senorita Margarita Cansino) into a bona-fide, all-American star. It confirmed Gene Kelly's amazing talent as a dancer, singer, actor and choreographer. It epitomises the exuberance and colour of the musical genre.<br /><br />Rita Hayworth is great as Rusty Parker- it is her picture, and her presence is always at the forefront. Her singing is dubbed, but her dancing is absolutely brilliant and she combines very well with Kelly. I think that Rita was highly underrated as an actress- she plays every scene superbly here. Gene choreographed the dance sequences (he was basically given almost complete creative freedom here), and his 'Alter Ego' dance number is amazing. Such artistry. The stand-out tunes are 'Make Way For Tomorrow', 'Put Me To The Test', and, of course, 'Long Ago and Far Away'. The plot is rather thin, yet it does have a moral. It's about the perils of quick fame and fast money, and how any happiness with only these factors will ultimately be doomed. This will cheer you up, lift you up to your feet and make you laugh.<br /><br />That said, 'Cover Girl' is not the greatest musical ever produced- it has a number of flaws that must be addressed. One can say that a little bit of Phil Silvers goes a long way. His character gets tedious rather quickly. However, I was impressed with his dancing ability and how he was able to keep up with Gene and Rita. Another major problem is that too many songs are just not that great. The 'Cover Girl' number looks fantastic, but I'm not a fan of the lyrics or the singing. 'Poor Tom' is a huge downer. I think it's one of the worst numbers I've heard in a 40's-50's musical yet. It stinks. The grandmother sub-plot borders on being ridiculous. But that's only my opinion. Others may like these elements.<br /><br />Still, apart from it's faults it's a very, very good film, much better than most of the product churned out today. The dancing and singing is sublime, the production values are excellent, and it's mood is infectious.<br /><br />8/10.
1	This is definitely an outstanding 1944 musical with great young stars and famous veteran actors under the direction of Charles Vidor. Rita Hayworth, (Rusty Parker),"Charlie Chan in Egypt", sang and danced with Gene Kelly,(Danny McGuire), "Anchors Away", Danny McGuire owned a night club in Brooklyn, N.Y. and was in love with Rusty Parker who was a dancer in his club along with Phil Silvers,(Genius),"Coney Island", who was the comedian in this picture and also worked and dance together with Danny, Rusty. Otto Kruger, (John Coudair),"Duel in the Sun" played the role as a promoter of a cover girl magazine and decided Rusty Parker was going to be his top model. Jerome Kern's music is heard through out the entire picture and the song, "Long Ago & Far Away" is the theme music for this musical. This film was nominated for many awards and was a big hit at the box office during WW II which kept peoples minds off of the war that was going on at the time. Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly were instant hits and their career's exploded on the silver screen for many many years. Great Musical and a film you will not want to miss, this is truly a great Classic Film. Enjoy
1	Rita Hayworth as Rusty Parker is the COVER GIRL du jour--she's one of the dancing girls in Danny McGuire's club, the most special one according to Danny (Gene Kelly) and pretty much anyone who comes across her. Take for example, Vanity magazine magnate John Coudair (Otto Kruger): enchanted by Rusty's resemblance to her grandmother Maribelle (also played by Hayworth in flashbacks), whom he wooed devotedly when he fell in love with her, he tries to relive his youth by fixing what he thinks went wrong between himself and Maribelle. He doesn't believe that Danny could give Rusty happiness, or everything she should be entitled to--he even gets Danny believing this himself. When Rusty shoots to fame as Vanity's 'Cover Girl', Danny drives her away into the ready and waiting arms of Noel Wheaton (Lee Bowman). So what happens when Danny returns to town with his sidekick Genius (Phil Silvers) in tow, only to discover that Rusty is marrying Wheaton?<br /><br />As a musical, COVER GIRL benefits from the beautiful score and songs written by Jerome Kern and Ira Gershwin, including the Oscar-nominated 'Long Ago and Far Away' (possibly one of the most gorgeous ballads ever written and beautifully, sweetly sung as a duet by Hayworth and Kelly), Maribelle's number 'Sure Thing' (the more lacklustre 'Poor John' isn't a Kern/Gershwin collaboration) and 'Put Me To The Test'. The dancing, of course, is top-notch, since Gene Kelly had more than just a hand in the choreography. It shows in the simplest of dances, for example his dance with Hayworth to 'Put Me To The Test', or the joyfully exuberant 'Make Way For Tomorrow' number (performed by the trio of Danny, Rusty and Genius)... which foreshadows the reaction Gene's character has to the police cop in the title number in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. Kelly especially scored a technological and artistic coup with the 'Alter-Ego' dance. Like its successors in ANCHORS AWEIGH and AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (Jerry the Mouse and the 16-minute ballet respectively), this dance is an example of the incredible innovation and creativity Kelly brought to the modern film musical: wanting to use the film medium to present dances that couldn't be showcased on a stage, and years before CGI, Kelly insisted on dancing with the one person who could possibly match him in talent and style--himself. The number is hardly five minutes long, but it (and Kelly's genius) still takes one's breath away, even sixty years down the line. This is the reason I watched COVER GIRL, and if nothing else, this dance is truly worth it.<br /><br />You can tell that a great deal of money was lavished onto COVER GIRL and Rita Hayworth--not that she doesn't deserve it. Witness the scene when Rusty hits Broadway--the large screen showcasing all the different cover girls gives way to a staggeringly large stage rigged for Rusty's entrance. Hayworth is indeed one of the most effortlessly beautiful girls on show in the film, and she dances with a style and grace that is almost worthy of Kelly. (Very few of Kelly's co-stars have that honour.) She is hilarious in some scenes, for example her drunk scene when John and Wheaton come to get her from Joe's.<br /><br />For some reason, however, her performance still lacks the spark of greatness which would help COVER GIRL overcome its general curse of mediocrity. That curse is only lifted whenever Gene Kelly is on the screen (dancing or no), or when Eve Arden as John's long-suffering secretary 'Stonewall' sidles by with another cutting comment or clever observation. Since the film, in the end, belongs to Hayworth, neither Kelly nor Arden can save it as a whole. This isn't to say that the film is bad--it isn't. It's enjoyable, with great songs and cute numbers and lots of pretty girls to look at. But it's just not quite a classic. The dancing is classic though--so watch COVER GIRL for that, and you won't regret it.
1	"Sir" has played Lear over 200 times,but tonight he can't remember his opening lines.Sitting at the mirror,his eyes reflect the King's madness. His dresser prompts him gently,mouthing the words.There is an air of desperation about both these men.The great actor knowing his powers are slipping away,his valet cum major domo cum conscience cum surrogate wife - aware of his boss's decline into madness and knowing he is powerless to do more than ease his passing. "The Dresser" is really a love story between the two.Over the years they have become mutually dependent on one another to the extent that neither can conceive a future without the other. Set during the second world war,it concerns the fortunes of a frankly second - rate touring Shakespearean Company comprising an equal number of has - beens and wannabes led by "Sir", a theatrical knight of what might kindly be called "The Old School".Whatever part he is playing he grabs centre - stage and bellows out over the footlights,bullying his audience into applause.But,somewhere inside him,buried most of the time deep beneath the ham he regularly dishes out,there still remains an occasional glitter of his earlier greatness.It is to catch a glimpse of this that his audiences fervently hope for. Mr A.Finney very cleverly concentrates on the ham,often to the point of caricature,and,just when you are ready to dismiss his performance as mere hyperbole and bluster he will produce a moment of exquisite subtlety and vulnerability that makes you realise that a great actor is playing a great actor. The same goes for Mr T.Courtenay.It's easy to write off his portrayal<br /><br />of Norman as an exercise in stereotyping.Here we have a middle - aged effeminate rather than camp theatrical dresser sashaying his way through life,enjoying the company of "The Girls" and loving the wicked Insider gossip rife in "The Theatre".There were - and I strongly suspect still are - many men just like Norman in The Profession.Infinitely kind and patient,knowing more about the plays than many of the actors,they run backstage with wisdom and affection.I believe the vast majority of them would hoot with approving laughter at Mr Courtenay's portrait. I saw "The Dresser" on the London stage where,against the perceived wisdom,Mr Courtenay's "Norman" was rather more subdued than in the movie."Sir" was played by the great Mr Freddie Jones to huge acclaim from the audience.It was a memorable performance that overshadowed Mr Courtenay's,reducing him rather to an "also - ran" as opposed to an actor on level - billing.The idea that "Sir" and "Norman" might be almost incomplete without each other went right out of the window. "Norman" was reduced to being his puppet,which I'm not sure was what Ronald Harwood intended,but made for breathtaking theatre. Messrs Finney and Courtenay redress the balance in the movie,restoring equality to the relationship. Both men have come a long way since their early appearances in the British "New Wave" pictures when they became the darlings of the vaguely Leftish,"middle - class and ashamed of it" movement.When the British cinema virtually committed Hari - kiri in the 1970s they quietly concentrated on the theatre apart from a few roles to keep the wolf from the door.With the renaissance of more substantial movies,they re - appeared,blinking in the unaccustomed bright light.<br /><br />"The Dresser" marked their return,still fizzing with energy and talent, shouting to the world at large "We're still here".It's not a big movie but is assuredly a great one.
1	This is a movie that deserves another look--if you haven't seen it for a while, or a first look--if you were too young when it came out (1983). Based on a play by the same name, it is the story of an older actor who heads a touring Shakespearean repertory company in England during World War II. It deals with his stress of trying to perform a Shakespeare each night while facing problems such as bombed theaters and a company made up of older or physically handicapped actors--the young, able bodied ones being taken for military service. It also deals with his relationship with various members of his company, especially with his dresser. So far it all sounds rather dull but nothing could be further from the truth. While tragic overall, the story is told with a lot of humor and emotions run high throughout. The two male leads both received Oscar nominations for best actor and deservedly so. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys human drama, theater--especially Shakespeare, or who has ever worked backstage in any capacity. The backstage goings-on make up another facet of the movie that will be fascinating to most viewers.
1	This film has its detractors, and Courtney's fey dresser may offend some folks (who, frankly, need a good smack upside the head) -- but the film is top notch in every way: engaging, poignant, relevant. Finney, naturally, is larger than life. Courtney makes an ideal foil. I thought the performances to be terribly strong in both leads, and Courtney's character provides plenty of dark humor. The period is well captured, the supporting cast well chosen. This is to be seen and savored like a fine cordial. I only wish it were out on DVD already...(*sigh*)...
1	Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we "see" better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in "Lear" itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video.
1	A fantastic cinema experience. I really enjoyed seeing this truly magnificent film in the theater when it came out. There is nothing to add, except that is a terrible shame that sir Albert Finney still isn't accepted by the AMPAS (American Academy). After roles in such films as Tom Jones, Murder on the Orient Express, Under the Volcano (to name only few - for these he was nominated for the Oscar), The Dresser is arguably his highlight, yet...<br /><br />I know, Oscars are just popularity contest, but if Americans like British actors and actresses ("and the Oscar goes to" Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day-Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Glenda Jackson etc. - and they all deserved the award!), why they always left sir Finney with empty hands?<br /><br />On the other hand, they gave it to John Wayne and Marisa Tomei (in Cousin Vinny). I don't know, should I laugh or cry.<br /><br />If you have seen the two leads in The Dresser, you won't forget what is the art of acting. Watch this film and enjoy! I recommend it to everyone who loves art.<br /><br />I give 9/10 for this excellent film (1 point missing for non-cinematic material, after all it is "just" a theater)<br /><br />Note: My criteria is much stronger than this on IMDb (10 only for the cinematic masterpiece that should/could last forever).
1	<br /><br />What more can you ask for? A great screenplay based on one of the finest plays of the latter half of the 20th century, two fine emotional performances by Courtney and Finney, a realistic vision of war time london, a great supporting cast. This film takes you on an emotional rollercoaster through humour, sadness, loss and fulfillment. if you are in the theatre it is even more effective. This is a true 10 on the rating scale !
1	My yardstick for measuring a movie's watch-ability is if I get squirmy. If I start shifting positions and noticing my butt is sore, the film is too long. This movie did not even come close to being boring. Predictable in some parts sure, but never boring.<br /><br />All of the other military branches have had love notes written about them and seen their recruitment levels go up, why not the Coast Guard too? They are definitely under-appreciated, until the day your boat sinks that is.<br /><br />The movie was very enjoyable and fun. Kevin Costner is perfect as the aging macho man who doesn't know when to quit. However, I was most impressed by Ashton Kutcher's performance. I have never liked him, never watched any of his TV shows and always considered him an immature ... well, punk. In this film, he does a great job! He is well on his way to having leading-man status. I think the film we were shown must have been an advance rough cut or something, because about 2/3 of the way in, the film stock turned very grainy, the sound level dropped and microphones were seen dropping down all over the place. Also at the viewing were representatives from the movie, looking for audience feedback - particularly on the parts of the film we didn't like.<br /><br />*****POSSIBLE SPOILER: The feedback I gave concerned a a couple of lines in the beginning. Kevin Costner comes home to see his wife, Sela Ward, packing her stuff up and moving out. He says, "Maybe I should be the one to move out." And she replies, "No, you don't know where anything is in this house; I should be the one to go." This doesn't make sense: If she knows the layout so well, Costner is right, he *should* be the one to leave.
1	'The Dresser' is one of those films which are so perfect you really struggle to find something not to like about them. Written by Ronald Harwood (himself a former dresser to the legendary Donald Wolfit), it sparkles with energy and true love of life behind the footlights.<br /><br />As 'Sir', the overbearing actor and main focus of the play, Albert Finney is a joy to watch - whether complaining about the lack of a storm during the 'blow, winds ...' bit of 'King Lear' or chatting to his faithful stage manager, Madge (Eileen Atkins, good as ever) about the old times. As Norman, his camp dresser, Tom Courtenay gives a fabulous performance, wiggling around at the beck and call of 'Lear', collecting a bottle to go at the pub, or bitchily disparaging the former Fool, Mr Davenport-Scott (often mentioned, but never seen!).<br /><br />In an engaging support cast, there's Edward Fox as Oxenby (a typical arrogant second lead), Zena Walker as her Ladyship, Lockwood West as the replacement Fool, and many others.<br /><br />This film has great energy, bringing with it some of the greasepaint of its stage origins, it is true, but being so well-acted you don't notice. Very well done indeed.
1	I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.
1	LACKAWANNA BLUES is a fine stage play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson and an even finer film as the author adapted his own life story for the screen. This brilliant film ignites the screen with rich colors, fine music, brilliant editing, superb direction by George C. Wolfe, and a cast so stunning that they make an encore viewing compulsory! Yes, it is just that good.<br /><br />The story is based on the author's life as the child 'Junior' (Marcus Carl Franklin) raised in the inimitable home of soulfully empathetic Rachel "Nanny" Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson), a lady who devoted her life to aiding the disenfranchised by transporting them from the South, from mental hospitals, and from the streets to Lackawanna, New York. The boy recalls all the lessons he learned about life from the inhabitants of the house - odd characters with painful pasts - and from the disintegration of his racially mixed biological family rescued by Nanny. The myriad characters of the home are too numerous to outline but they are portrayed by some of the finest actors in the business: Terrence Howard, Rosie Perez, Mos Def, the beautiful Carmen Ejogo, Louis Gossett Jr., Jeffrey Wright, Ernie Hudson, Charlayne Woodward, Jimmy Smits, Patricia Wettig, Macy Gray, Liev Schreiber, Kathleen Chalfant, Lou Myers, Hill Harper - the list goes on and on.<br /><br />In the course of the film we are introduced to the cruelties of racism, the history of desegregation, the dynamics of drug abuse and violence, the infectious joy of African American music contributions to our musical culture, and the courage of one fine woman who battled all the hardships the world can dish out to maintain the dignity of those with whom she came into contact. S. Epatha Merkerson is wholly submerged in this role, a role she makes shine like a beacon of reason in a world of chaos. She offers one of the most stunning performances of the past years, and had this film been released in the theaters instead of as an HBO movie, she without a doubt would add the Oscar to place along side her Golden Globe award.<br /><br />The entire cast is exceptional and Wolfe handles the acting and the story like a master: like riffs in a jazz piece, he pastes tiny moments of conversation with each character and Junior along with flashes of scenes from the story with the matrix of dance fests at the local clubs brimming over the top with incredible blues, jazz, dancing, and joy. The production crew has mounted this little miracle of a picture with extreme care and never for a moment does attention lag from the momentum of the story. Highly Recommended, almost Compulsory Viewing! Grady Harp
1	Lackawanna Blues is a drama through and through. It details the life of a strong woman by the name of Rachel Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson). Rachel is referred to as Nanny by all who know her, but she could have just as easily been called Wonder Woman. She epitomized strength, will power, confidence and resolve. She owned a home that she used to house just about every type of person that society would reject. Her tenants consisted of a lesbian, a psychotic war veteran, an amputee, and a host of other vagrants that made the home miles away from ordinary. Each successive event Rachel took in stride and handled flawlessly. She wasn't a dictator devoid of compassion, but in fact she was quite the opposite. She displayed compassion almost to a fault by giving shelter and refuge to so many that she seemed to over-extend herself.<br /><br />Merkerson did a good job, but I believe this role was right up her alley anyway. The movie had an even keel never straying from Rachel. There were of course dramatic moments but they were to be expected. Nothing was ever to shocking or profound other than Rachel herself.
1	Lackawanna Blues is a touching story about Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to help those in need. It's told from the viewpoint of a boy, taken in by Nanny when his own mother isn't quite up to the task.<br /><br />I have respect for this movie for three main reasons: 1) It is touching, but not sappy. It's told in a very real fashion, without a lot of the aggravating Hollywood storytelling baggage. And the ending is quite good (teary but not over-the-top).<br /><br />2) Although it's clearly an African-American film, being set in the post-segregation black community of Lackawanna, New York, it doesn't wear its ethnicity on its sleeve. The story stands on the strength of the characters and the dramas (and comedies) surrounding their lives. It's not preachy, it's simply good.<br /><br />3) It has a great soundtrack (can't beat old-school R&B and Chicago blues).<br /><br />Generally the acting is strong, but not universally so. Some of the performances simply don't hold up to the characters the actors are supposed to portray. But considering it was a made-for-TV movie, that's to be expected.<br /><br />8 out of 10. Imperfect but likable, good film for a rainy day.
1	Every once in a while a film comes along with characters we all know and love. A film where you see people you know portrayed on screen. It's cinema very at its best.<br /><br />Lackawanna Blues is that film. Set in 1960s upstate New York, the story surrounds a rock- solid woman, who is the foundation for her community. This, based on a true story film, is told from a child she accepted as her own. This child, Ruben Santiago-Hudson wrote the screenplay.<br /><br />*Emmy winner, S. Epatha Merkerson stars as Nanny, a woman who has wit, drive and determination for helping others in her boarding home. She does this as she wrestles with infidelity from her young lover, Bill Crosby, played by the **Oscar nominated Terrence Howard. <br /><br />But make no mistake; see this film for the amazing performance of Merkerson, who is brilliant in this role. She encompasses a person we have all known, and perhaps love.<br /><br />Lackawanna Blues is already on DVD; be sure to pick it up at your local video story today.<br /><br />*Merkerson has already won an Emmy, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild for this role.<br /><br />**Howard has an Oscar nomination for his role in Hustle & Flow.
1	LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it.
1	This is by far one of the best biographical films of recent times. I'll go so far as to put it up there with Ray and The Aviator. It is the story of a young, bi-racial boy who lives in a boarding house run by the amazing Miss Rachael aka "Nanny". You will fall in love with Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to those around her. S. Epatha Merkerson brings the character to life beautifully, and the other cast members are do the same. If I were to praise each actor for the way they played their roles, I'd have to mention everyone in the entire cast. <br /><br />The music in this film perfectly blends with the story, almost dictates the way it goes. And what's more, this film is actually entertaining. It won't bore you at all, not even for a minute! <br /><br />I highly recommend this film to anyone wanting to spend an evening at home watching a very smart, very entertaining, quality film.
1	S. Epatha Merkerson shines as Nanny in this touching and vibrant look at the life of Ruben Santiago, Jr. (Marcus Franklin) while growing up under the guardianship of Nanny. The film gives a good character study of both Nanny and Ruben and manages to capture life's ups and downs in a realistic fashion unlike so many memoirs that are made into film. The supporting cast adds much spark and many recognizable faces appear in smaller roles including Mos Def, Macy Gray, Terrence Dashon Howard, Rosie Perez, Louis Gossett, Jr., Liev Schreiber, Jimmy Smits, Ernie Hudson, Delroy Lindo, and Patricia Wettig. Loses some steam and vibrancy towards the end, and the ending sequence leaves a bittersweet feeling. But, overall a great film with a truly outstanding performance by Merkerson.
1	Ever since I first encountered the Divine Ms Merkerson as a sex therapist in Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It" I have been sold on the range of this exceedingly gifted yet terribly underrated actress. She received an Emmy for her portrayal here and to say it is well-deserved is a masterpiece of understatement.<br /><br />Here she simply shines as THE guiding force and hand in her community. This was especially poignant for me for I grew up in this very same time period. The production detail was phenomenal and evoked wooooooooooooooonderful memories of life and times during the 50s & 60s and of women like Ms Merkerson portrayed. She was thoroughly and ably accompanied by a hot, hot cast with performances one would enjoy over and over again. I first saw Macy Gray's name in the credits and went ho-hum. Her performance was so good, I didn't even recognize her until about a 3rd of the way through. I am especially proud of the obvious care and attention to detail to produce a feel and look of another beautiful era in African-American culture that is very tastefully done.<br /><br />Another very interesting aspect is that the project was less concerned with the racial fabric of the times but infinitely more attuned to the richness of the characters and the emotional diversity they provide to exemplify that in the final analysis it is about the choices we make and to what extent we accept responsibility for those choices.<br /><br />This is a worthy, elegant presentation of African-American life and is most assuredly destined to become a classic. You owe it to yourself to have this as part of your collection.<br /><br />I highly recommend.
1	How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.<br /><br />The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.<br /><br />From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.<br /><br />7 of 10 but almost a 6.
1	Lackawana Blues An impressive HBO movie about a beautiful woman that made her house a home for several characters.Touching,alive,entrancing-a great mix of sound and story- based on a true story featuring an All-Star cast.A time capsule about .....<br /><br />you get the point and no I am not on the payola for the HBO crew- I would throw around more superlatives but I am about to go out . The extras on the DVD include a deleted scene,a featurette and commentary.The funniest part about the featurette was "star" lighting they used when interviewing exec producer Halle Berry..<br /><br />OK seriously - good times A
1	What a wonderful film, filled with eccentric, unique characters who are wonderfully realized by a great ensemble cast. The director also did a great job keeping the story held together, getting those wonderful performances (on not messing with them) and using music (and what wonderful music it is) to great effect. S. Epatha in the lead role is great. I had always heard what a brilliant stage actor she is, and although I have enjoyed her on Law and Order, this really shows what she can do with a filled out, complex role. Macy Gray is terrific, Mos Def, as usual, wonderful. Lou Gossett, great. Jimmy Smits, terrific, and doesn't try to pull focus because he's a star. A true piece of ensemble acting. <br /><br />Rent it, enjoy it, groove to it, and treasure it. Something special.
1	This is one of those movies that you just don't want to end. The characters are rich like a well woven tapestry. Colorful costumes, music and characters draw you in and tell a tale of the people that lived in a boarding house over the decades around the time of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. A young man is taken in by a dynamic, big-hearted woman that runs the house and these are stories based on his experiences.<br /><br />I couldn't believe this was a made for television film. It was so well executed. S. Epatha Merkerson is wonderful as Nanny and she brings so much life to this role. You want to be right there amongst her boarders.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film so much I bought the DVD.
1	One of the best,Lackawanna Blues<br /><br />Great movie,great cast,great music,this is one of those movies that is so good that when it is over you wish it would go on for another 90 minutes,I will w3atch this one many times. <br /><br />This is one of those movies that grabs you from the beginning and twist and slams you emotionally throughout the feature. The cast is extraordinary without the faintest hint of anyone being uncormfortable in their role. You get the sense that you're really there taking all this in. A great deal of care was given in the sets, costumes and music of the period. The relationship between the characters we meet is both simple and complicated as the movie goes on, but the steady performance of Ms. Merkerson is so powerful that the movie ends before we've had our fill of the wonderful misfits. To single out anyone other than "Nanny" is an injustice because we have very good performances by great veteran actors including:<br /><br />Jeffery Wright, Jimmy Smits, Terrence Howard and Delroy Lindo. But it is Marcus Franklin, Macy Gray and Ms. Merkerson that makes this a wonderful experience.<br /><br />The movie moves rapidly and is short by todays standards, but it is without question one of the best movies you're going to see this year. If you like good period pieces that will challenge you emotionally, tug at your heart, lift you joyfully and have you tapping your feet at the same time, then this is the movie for you. I've shown it to several friends and they all want my copy, that says it all, the movie is that good. Check it out for yourself.<br /><br />danceability-1, Amsterdam Holland
1	Lackawanna Blues is a moving story about a boy who is raised in a house by some pretty unusual people. <br /><br />It's editing and soundtrack really pulls you in to the story and lets you experience the film the way the writer really meant for it to be seen.<br /><br />The music really tied into the story, which made the characters come to life. The editing made the story more progressive and captivating. <br /><br />I was also surprised by some of the performances of the cast, most notably S. Epatha Merkerson's.<br /><br />I can't wait to see the one man show featuring this films writer, Ruben Santiago-Hudson.
1	Just a great soundtrack. Really enjoyable music. Outstanding cast, great lead performance. Worth watching.<br /><br />Doesn't really explain what happened to the neighborhood. You are left feeling that integration is to blame or that with the departure of the lead character the neighborhood disintegrated.<br /><br />This movie seems well researched and extremely well crafted. I especially enjoyed some of the minor characters like Jeffrey Wright.<br /><br />The cutting during the opening sequence helps express what a lively, engaging and desirable experience that nightclub would have been with the jump music, food, drink, dancing, gambling and sex.
1	I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town "Philadelphia, PA" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental.
1	Lackawanna Blues is and excellent movie. The casting was perfect. Every actor and actress was perfectly suited for the role they played. Their chemistry together was amazing. The acting was superb. I felt as if i knew the characters. I could almost 'feel' them. They reminded me of people that I knew as a child growing up in the 50's and 60's. Oh, the memories!! My personal belief is that this movie should have been on the big screen for all to see. I have watched this movie so many times, that I can almost recite the lines as the characters are saying them. I can't even list my favorite part, because I have SO MANY favorite parts. Thank you for bringing back a part of my youth that I never see in this day and age...and that is Black people loving each other, looking out for each other, respecting each other, caring about each other, and doing all we can to help each other. Gotta go now. I have to go watch it again.
1	I watch Lackawanna Blues every time it comes on. It brings back happy times for me. I grow up in a big city in the mid-west. It reminds me of when I was a child although my situation was a little different it feels the same. It makes me wonder if all we will ever know about families are lost. The big mama's of day are under the age of 55. Will they see know what it takes to be a inspiration to other. I hope that I was not the only one who loved this movie enough to relate it to their past. The music was great in this movie. I truly felt like this should have gone to the theaters I would have paid to see it. As I viewed the movie for the second time I figured out who life this movie was about. He did an superb job in writing and producing this film. I guess who better to produce a film based on your life other than you. As soon as I can I will be obtaining a copy for my home use. I alway enjoy black producer or directors they make such film feel like you were actually living in the time right than. Thanks for such a great movie.
1	Lackawanna Blues is a very moving film depicting an era filled with varying emotions and characters as seen through the eyes of a young boy. The film clearly supports "it takes a village to raise a child" and reminds of an important time in black history and culture. I gained an incredible amount of respect for Macy Gray as an actress. Her character was a little crazy, yet lovable; clearly we all have known someone like Macy's character. S. Epatha Merkerson is absolutely fantastic as Nanny. I never realized that Epatha was such a great actress. Law & Order never showcased the depth of Epatha's acting abilities like Lackawanna Blues. I was pleasantly surprised and amazed! The music and the characters reminded me of my own childhood...it was a sweet nostalgic walk down memory lane. I truly enjoyed the film and eagerly await the DVD release to add to my collection.
1	This movie was sadly under-promoted but proved to be truly exceptional. Entering the theatre I knew nothing about the film except that a friend wanted to see it.<br /><br />I was caught off guard with the high quality of the film. I couldn't image Ashton Kutcher in a serious role, but his performance truly exemplified his character. This movie is exceptional and deserves our monetary support, unlike so many other movies. It does not come lightly for me to recommend any movie, but in this case I highly recommend that everyone see it.<br /><br />This films is Truly Exceptional!
1	Fantastically written, acted, and produced! Loved seeing this gleaming, talented cast -- every single one of them -- give a such great performance. This movie thoroughly warmed the cockles of my heart! Great storytelling!<br /><br />This is a great movie for Black History month. Full of an accurate portrayal of recent history and very real characters who weathered incredible pain -- with dignity and a belief in a better future. It is so easy to see how these diverse adults all affected this child and contributed to the fertile imagination that would eventually fuel the talent of his adulthood. The next time you're in the company of a listening and observing child, remember; show or he may be a writer-in-the-making!
1	This was absolutely one of the best movies I've seen. <br /><br />Excellent performances from a marvelous A-List cast that will move you from smiles to laughter to tears and back.<br /><br />I couldn't help but care about the characters. Ms. Merkerson will blow you away, as will the young man playing the young lead.<br /><br />I also thought that the set design was top-rate. The viewer is really placed inside each era as it's presented. <br /><br />The music is a blast, too. Nice selections to represent mood, time and place. The blind blues man is stereotypic but he delivers some great songs. <br /><br />This is a great story that will survive many repeated viewings. Take the time to watch it!
1	This is a must-see movie. You will laugh, you will cry, and when it's over you'll wish there were more. Well-written and compelling, this movie draws you in and holds on tight. The casting was perfect, the characters purposeful, and the performances outstanding. "Nanny" is the standard to which all women should hold themselves: strong, forgiving, protective, and never judgmental. "Nanny", to me, is the epitome of what a Christian mother and woman should be: a true pillar of the community. If I were half the woman "Nanny" is, I might consider myself to be doing okay. I would have been devastated if "Nanny" had died at some point in the movie, but since she didn't I will definitely buy this when it comes out on DVD. I can only hope that the story continues and that Ruben goes back to Lackawanna to try to rebuild the town, piece by piece and person by person.
1	This movie was very good, not great but very good. It is based on a one man play by Ruben Santiago Hudson..yes he played most of the parts. On paper it looks like stunt casting. Yes let's round up all the black folks in Hollywood and put them in one movie. Halle Berry even produced it. The only name I didn't see was Oprah's ,thank god because it probably would of ended up being like a Hallmark movie. Instead this movie was not some sentimental mess. It was moving but not phony, the characters came and went with the exception of her husband, Pauline and the writer in question. The movie revolved around the universe of Nanny, Mrs Bill Crosby and how she raised the writer and took in people. Now being a jaded New Yorker when he said she took in sick people and old and then we see them going to a mental institution to pick up a man, I'm thinking looks like sister has a medicare scam going. Getting folks jobs and taking the medicare/caid checks But no she explains to Lou Gosset she just wants 25 bucks a week and did not want the money ahead of time. I think that part was put in the movie just for us jaded New Yorkers so we know she is not scamming the poor folks.(g) It was written by a New Yorker so he knows the deal(g).. She almost seems angelic and looking through a little boys eyes I can see why. She is married to a ne'er do well who is 17 years younger and fools around on her. Terrence Howard was born to play these type of parts. He was good but I would like to see him play something different. Markerson who plays Nanny is also very good. But for some reason the person who stood out to me was a small role played by Jeffery Wright. Where is this mans Oscar? He already won a Emmy and a Tony. He was in Shaft and he stole the movie. I did not even know who he was in this movie. He is a chameleon never the same. I never seen him play a bad part yet. This was a 5 minute role and he managed to make me both laugh and cry. I re-winded the scene few times ..one time because I didn't know who he was. His wife Carman Ejogo was excellent. I have seen her in roles before mostly mousy stuff. But she is so good here. I actually know people who act just like her. So it was very real to me Macy Grey who had one of the bigger parts was also very good. I was very happy that they did not kill Nanny off. I thought she was a goner in the beginning of the movie. BUT she was able to go home and start her old routine of taking care of people. There are women like that in most of our lives. People we might know or even lived with. Thank god for them, I do not know how they do it all of the time. I have a friend who lost 2 children and been through a lot of stuff but whenever I am feeling selfishly sorry for myself I call her and she always puts me in a good mood. THis movie is a tribute to all of those people. I only wish they they told us what happened to some of the characters like the the one armed man, Paulines boyfriend who is played by one of my favorite actors on HBO's The Wire, Omar, Rosie Perez's character and Richard the lesbian and Delroy Lindo's one arm man, he was mesmerizing in another small role.
1	This was a great movie. Something not only for Black History month but as a reminder of the goodness of people and the statement that it truly does take a village to raise a child. The performances by S Eptath was outstanding. Mos Def and his singing was off the hook. Had to do a double take when I saw that was Rosie Perez there. But the supporting cast of actors and actresses made this worth watching. All the different stories they had was amazing. And how Nanny protected Jr and literally everyone else that was in her presence. I can truly understand her being the matriarch of that time period and even more so how tired she was in helping everyone. Cant wait for it to come out on DVD. It would be a welcome addition to any movie library.
1	No blood, no sex (though it oozes passion), no special effects, but just one of those pearls that comes across your movie screen when you're not really looking and grabs your attention. <br /><br />Great acting, great sets, great music, beautiful storyline. If only there were a lot more movies made like this one!<br /><br />The sets move us through time and make us feel like we were there.<br /><br />The acting appears like real life, and elevates us to the level of awareness of "Nanny", to whom no-one is a lost cause, least of all the inhabitants of her own "Halfway" house. <br /><br />Best of all it's a true story of misfits learning to "fit in". I was somewhat jealous of the good times that everyone appeared to be having in the movie! Could we all spend some time in Nanny's house?
1	"Lackawanna Blues'is so emotionally powerful in its portrayal of urban Blacks during the 50s and early 60s. A culture of joy and sadness specific to working class Blacks that existed outside the mainstream culture. The characters of Santiago-Hudson's play depicted Black individuals who lived imperfect lives but maintained strong positive values of love,loyalty and honor. Although the characters moved away from those values at times, they did not deny the importance of the values. Instead they recognized and accepted their own imperfection and those of the other characters, without judgment, that passed through the life of "nanny". The central characters were strong and believable, the settings were realistic and brought back personal memories of a by-gone era. Pre-integration urban life was a time of sensory intoxication, sight, sound,and smell, that could almost be experienced by watching the drama "Lackawanna Blues" unfold. I will watch it again and again.
1	I gave this film my rare 10 stars.<br /><br />When I first began watching it and realized it would not be a film with a strong plot line I almost turned it off. I am very glad I didn't.<br /><br />This is a character driven film, a true story, which revolves mainly around the life of Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, beautiful (inside and out)Black woman and how she touched the lives of so many in the community of Lackawanna.<br /><br />Highly interesting not only its strong characterizations of Nanny and the people who lived at her boardinghouse, but also it gives us a look at what life and community were like for African Americans in the 1950's, prior to integration, and the good and bad sides of segregation and how it ultimately affected and changed the Black community.<br /><br />In addition to excellent performances by all members of the cast, there is some fine singing and dancing from that era.
1	Superb editing, outstanding acting, especially by Epatha Merkerson, and highly enjoyable musical soundtrack. This film reaches back to the 40's to comment on the racial lifestyle differences and some effect of desegregation while it weaves the true story of a truly admirable and fantastic lady.<br /><br />The actor portraying the young Terrence Howard character does a wonderful job reflecting the life and times of his upbringing in the small upstate New York town. The audience laughed, cried, and erupted in applause for the film and its director. <br /><br />Soon to be shown on HBO (Feb 7, I believe) - fire up the TIVO and enjoy a great story!
1	I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.<br /><br />The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day.
1	I only went to see this movie because I have always liked Kevin Costner. I felt that Ashton did a great job in the Butterfly Effect. Unfortunately, even though these two actors were/are capable of good if not great acting moments some of that was missing here. Some of the scenes were just not believable and didn't have enough story line support.<br /><br />Though the movie claims influence from the hurricane Katrina aftermath, there was very little (none) to that effect in the movie.<br /><br />Overall, I liked the fact that the movie brought forward some of what goes into saving lives from a water perspective.<br /><br />The special effects were pretty good and more than a little intimidating. Not sure I'll ever go deep sea fishing again...<br /><br />I expected a little more emotion in the film than what was presented.<br /><br />Definitely a movie that could've been seen on DVD.
1	The main reason for watching this picture is to savor the brilliant performance of S. Ephata Merkerson. Ms. Merkerson dominates this film with her tremendous presence as Nanny, the woman who believes in doing good, no matter to whom, with no strings attached. This actress clearly shows a range that is amazing.<br /><br />Thanks to director George Wolf for bringing this distinguished cast of some of the best Black Americans actors together. This ensemble group under his tight direction help create the right atmosphere in which the action takes place.<br /><br />Of course, none of this would have been possible if Ruben Santiago Hudson hadn't written his wonderful play. Working with Mr. Wolf, perhaps the best theater director of this generation, they have opened the play in a way that it evokes that not too distant past where a child lives under the influence of Ms. Crosby, when his own parents are not around to take care of him. Ms. Crosby becomes the adoring mother of little Ruben; in a way, he represents her reward for having lost her own daughter.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is no time to develop some of the characters, as the action solely concentrates in enhancing the relationship between Nanny and the young Ruben, played with such charm by the young Marcus Carl Franklin, who is a natural. The only thing that could have been done differently was the voice over narration that is at times intrusive, as it doesn't clarify, or justify what one is seeing. Frankly, just by watching the interaction of the players, is self explanatory.<br /><br />In the background there is always music. No matter what hard times these people are going through, but Nanny's house is full of laughter and that glorious music that takes us back to that era.<br /><br />Aside from Ms. Merkerson, other notable performances are given by Terrence Dashon Howard, one of the rising stars of the moment. Mos Def, Jeffrey Wright, Marcy Gray, Louis Gossett Jr.,Delroy Lindo, Rosie Perez, Carmen Ejogo, Jimmy Smits and the rest.<br /><br />Ms. S. Ephata Merkerson deserves to be seen by a wider audience. In "Lackawanna Blues", she clearly demonstrates she can do anything she wants because of her enormous talent and charisma.
1	The centerpiece of Lackawanna Blues is the character Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, who runs a boardinghouse and provides unflagging support to a young boy, Ruben, the narrator of the film. Based upon the experiences of writer-actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson, the film lovingly recreates the upstate New York boardinghouse and evokes the cultural climate of a world in transition in the 1960s. <br /><br />The first half of the film is virtually non-stop music. The second half addresses more completely the various characters in the boardinghouse. Nanny's ability "to take fragments and make them whole" affects everyone within her sphere. An especially vivid scene is when she confronts an abusive husband, telling him firmly, "If you ever touch that child again, we're going to dance!" As delivered by actress S. Epatha Merkerson, that line is so steely and filled with such resolve that the husband with the hair-trigger temper is frozen in his tracks. <br /><br />From start to finish, Merkerson delivers a commanding presence Her character binds together the disparate lives of the borders in her home. This was a touching, heartfelt film with a wonderful cast. As played by Merkerson, the character of Nanny simply radiates love. This is a film experience that I will remember for a long time to come.
1	Fun, entertaining movie about WWII German spy (Julie Andrews!) falling in love with American pilot (Rock Hudson), while trying to get secrets from him. For some reason this was attacked by critics and shunned by the public in 1970--I can't see why. It's beautifully shot, has wonderful costumes and interiors, and exciting aerial dogfights. Also it has Andrews doing a strip-tease (strictly PG material) and singing a beautiful song--"Whistling in the Dark". The movie does have problems. Andrews and Hudson did not get along during the shooting of this--and it shows. Their love scenes lack spark and they have zero sexual chemistry. Still, they turn in OK performances. The film is a little long (even in the 105 min director's cut I saw) and gets way too dark and serious at the end. Still, worth catching. Try seeing the directors cut...the other one runs half an hour longer!
1	It really is a great film (after being able to ignore Blake Edwards Pink Panther references which he appears to be obsessed with and are hugely unfunny). Julie is, as usual, wonderful - singing and acting brilliantly. I remember seeing it at the Odeon Cinema in the Haymarket, London on its release. However Julie's non-appearance at the UK premiere of STAR! was most unfortunate and (apparently!) due to filming the aerial shots for Darling Lili over Ireland. A reasonable excuse if she had appeared in any of these aerial shots but she did not. Two box office flops in a row ruined her film career for quite a few years. But Darling Lili,just like STAR!, deserves much more public appreciation.
1	Darling Lili is a mixture of Perfection and Magic! The Stars; Julie Andrews & Rock Hudson could not have done a better attempt if they tried. It's full of all the magic that a young lady wishes for and it makes it seem as if it can all really happen to you. The brilliance of the Director; Blake Edwards is shown to be at his best. He was truly capturing the woman he loved on screen!<br /><br />The blend of each song, went perfectly with the moment in the film. The Film opened with Julie Andrews singing Whistling Away In The Dark and closed with the same Song by Andrews.<br /><br />For A Film Of This Excellence To Have Been Such A Failure When It Was Released, Is A Total Shock...<br /><br />As It Is: "Inspirational...Purely....Inspirational!" ~One Of Andrews Most Memorable Lines In This Film!
1	I am an avid Julie Andrews fan and I just watched this for the first time on DVD -- the Director's Cut version. I was very surprised that it was rated G. How did they get bedroom scenes, a seduction story line, two strip tease acts, and war/shooting/blood into a G rating? Weird. I would rate it PG-13.<br /><br />Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was a beautiful showcase of Andrew's voice and talent. The acting was great. The storyline was a little weak, leaving gaps that could have been filled with some good dialogue. There were too many "no talking, just walking" scenes for me... I would have liked to see the the relationship between Julie and Rock blossom, so that the intense love would be more believable.
1	I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!<br /><br />The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun. <br /><br />I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered.
1	This Blake Edwards film isn't too sure whether it wants to be a comedy, a drama or a musical. No matter, the sheer presence of Julie Andrews, is reason enough to see this comedy-drama-musical-spy spoof. Julie is beautiful and uses her many talents, throughout the film. Rock Hudson looks tired, but he's is more than fine, as Julie's romantic interest. Authentic World War I cars and planes, add to the appeal. Overall, the film is very entertaining. The DVD release is an edited (by Blake Edwards) version of the original release. Supposedly, this is the only version that Edwards would allow; but, Turner Classic Movies has shown the complete (theatrical release) version, recently. Recommended.
1	Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson were great in this movie / musical. The opening song by Ms. Andrews, "Whistling Away the Dark," will always be in the back roads of my mind. The plot line during World War I, is great and suspenseful one. If you are a romantic, you will love this movie. This is a movie that I always enjoy to see again and again.
1	i found the story to be just enough of a thriller that the wonderful henry mancici music didn't lull me. julie andrews was excellant and i sure don't understand why this movie had problems at the box office when it came out because it just makes me happy at the end to have everybody singing. and i do like happy ever after endings which i think you can say this movie has along with some traditional blake edwards humor...
1	I was fortunate enough to see this movie on pre-release last night and, though I wasn't expecting to, actually really enjoyed the movie for the most part. The rescues and sea effects were amazing to watch and definitely provided edge of the seat tense moments, probably all the more so knowing that there are guys who do this for a living. The weaker parts of the movie revolve largely around using stereotypical set scenes. I'm not going to spoil the movie but this really follows along the lines of An Officer and a Gentleman and those moments give it a little bit of a cheesy aftertaste.<br /><br />Like I said over all this movie is pretty good and worth checking out as long as you can get past the clichés.
1	This movie is certainly well-constructed, beginning and ending in the dark, with focus on Lili Smith /Schmidt, Julie Andrews,initially the singing 'angel' later the notorious spy.<br /><br />It's beautiful! I saw the movie about 15 years ago and watched it again recently. While it was dismissed by critics in the 70's as overblown, 'cinema vulgaris', and lacking in structure (among others) time has proven them wrong. Blake Edwards certainly has produced a film that is almost of lyrical quality.<br /><br />The film soars and swirls (aerial photography; Julie Andrews in motion) and captivates. One must just buy into the premise that Julie Andrews is a spy whose mission has gone wrong. Overlooking the tepid chemistry between Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, one must believe that these are lovers - who in all innocence fall for each other. And in the end, love is far more important than winning wars. And so is maintaining innocence.<br /><br />There is a lot of understated acting, and the film certainly reaches emotional depths often not seen in comedies.<br /><br />There are wonderful comedic elements (foreshadowing the French goons in Victor/Victoria), interesting diplomatic asides (reminding me of The Tamarind Seed, seen about 18 years ago) and a general sense of good-will.<br /><br />Suspend all disbelief and this movie will carry you away. Julie Andrews' belting out of war songs and the haunting 'Whistling Away the Dark' are reason enough to turn the TV on, just for the soundtrack. And the striptease number, like the 'Jenny' number in Star! works. <br /><br />This film has, like a good champagne, aged well. Paramount should bring it to DVD as soon as possible. The same applies to transferring the laser disk of Star! to DVD. These are both interesting pieces of Julie Andrews' meticulous and then underrated works.
1	I always loved this film. The music,story and the action. I especially love the opening and closing of the film. The music stayed with me throughout the years. The WWI plane battles were great and the comedy is typical Blake Edwards. Slaptick is his forte' after all. Julie's singing is amazing and keeps me glued to the screen. The sets and the scenes are wonderful. The characters are appealing. I loved the scene with the wounded soldiers and Julie's singing to them. I wish she sang to me in Vietnam. I also enjoyed the old cars from the period and the WWI music.I was glad when the DVD arrived. Now I can whistle in the dark watching it again and again.
1	Even a bad Julie Andrews Musical is worth watching and this isn't bad! In fact it's quite entertaining. Actually it's a fascinating study on trying to manipulate a star's personae.<br /><br />To break Julie's "goody two shoes mold" she plays a German Spy/English Musical Hall Actress. She subsequently went on to take her top off in the movie S.O.B. and play a drag queen in Victor Victoria and other not so goody girls usually under hubby Blake Edward's direction.<br /><br />The movie is admittedly problematic It is hard to feel for her character because she's a German Spy. We want to love Julie but she's on the wrong side of the law. Probably this is why this movie flopped. Julie as a German Spy? Our Mary Poppins? our Maria Van Trapp suddenly a German Spy?<br /><br />The romance seems to happen overnight and come from nowhere. But never mind, it's a musical and it has Jullie. Oh and did I mention hunky Rock Hudson is in it too?<br /><br />Julie gives a glowing wonderful performance that any musical comedy buff should not miss. Great WW 1 Songs and nice tunes by Mancini.<br /><br />Yes the film has plot holes and at times doesn't seem logical. For example, why is Julie and her uncle suddenly pursued by the Germans when a minute ago she was spying for them. <br /><br />But on another note, who cares? The musical numbers are fun and exciting. The costumes and scenery extraordinarily lavish. The cinematography quite on the mark.<br /><br />It has the annoying idiot detectives that Blake Edwards puts in all his movies. (Yawn)<br /><br />But it has Julie- trying desperately to change her image. (You can imagine dinner with Blake and Julie - Julie: "Blake we need to change my image." <br /><br />Blake: "I Will make you a German Spy, then we will take your clothes off in another movie and then play a transvestite in a another movie. They won't recognize you. It will be the death of Maria Von Trapp"<br /><br />Fascinating study on changing an image. Wonderful Julie. A must see for musical comedy buffs. Much more entertaining than Star!
1	Yes, I am a romantic of sorts who likes musicals and comedy and this fit the bill! Julie Andrews gives a mesmerizing performance at the beginning and end of this film with the "Whistling in the Dark" production number. The sedate-to-outrageous number that she performs in the middle of the story when she believes that Rock Hudson has been seeing a dancing/call girl is eye-popping and will certainly make you giggle.<br /><br />I only wish that this film could be found in video or DVD as I would surely purchase it in a heartbeat for my home library!
1	Darling Lili is fantastic! Its by far one my favorite films! It certainly didn't deserve the poor reviews it received. Julie Andrews, playing the title role of Lili Smith (Schmidt) is the best part of the whole movie. She is entrancing and spectacular! As Julie Andrews is my most favorite actress and singer by far, I was most definatly not surprised by how stunning she is. This movie is just...great (I'm running out of adjectives!), it's magnificent, marvellous, amazing, funny, terribly romantic, sad, and just an all-out thrill and its all thanks to Dame Julie Andrews!And to her husband, director Blake Edwards. Oh, yeah Rock Hudson was ok, too :)<br /><br />Julie Andrews is the beautiful and well-loved singer, Lili Smith. Rock Hudson portrays Major Larabee, who quickly falls for Lili, and she with him. But their affair was not coincedental. There meeting was planned by the German Government (I'm not sure if that's exactly what you'd call them, but you get the point), because the warm, happy, singing entertainer Lili is actually a German Spy. Lili is told to seduce Major LArabee in order to get information of the new Top Secret Opertaion (later know as "Crepe Suzette"). Though Lili is on a solemn mission, she falls in love with Bill (Major Larabee), for real, making her original quest challenging. But Lili pulls through and completes er task, after she finds out something that is not really true about Bill. The ending will remain unsaid by me as it is wonderfully layed out. If anything, you'll thoroughly enjoy this movie, I most certainly did!!!!!!!!<br /><br />
1	This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack!
1	I suppose I like this film as well as any I know; it is not perfect, but under the title "The Americanization of Lily" this charming and memorable semi-musical satire might I suggest have been appreciated more, and still loved by those who recognized its special Blake Edwards'-produced spirit of gentleness, clever humor and solid narrative. The improbably but delightful story-line follows Lili Smith, a fringe-type spy for the Germans in a much simpler and less black-and-white war; Lili Schmidt passing as Smith is helping her Uncle who is patriotic too, for Germany but neither cruel nor political, merely opportunistic. Lili's target is William Larrabee, a charismatic U.S. squadron leader who can supply her valuable information. The plot thickens comes when Lili falls in love with Larrabee, has her eyes opened to the consequences of her playing spy, and sees the effects of combat on wounded men at a hospital and realizes what it might mean to his men whom she has met and likes. She gets jealous of a rival for Larrabee's affections, then realizes she can no longer do what she has been doing and gives up the spy business. The logical end of the film comes when after the terrible WWI has ended, as she sings the theme song of the film, "Wishing" in a darkened theater, one by one the members of Larrabee's squadron appear, including her lover himself, indicating they have forgiven her and their former opponents; and even Uncle Kurt enthusiastically joins in the singing of "It's a Long To Tipperraree", to indicate all is well with the world again. This is an audacious and sometime brilliant story idea, written by director Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty of "John Goldfarb" fame; and it is a delightful narrative. Larrabee's squadron, including an inebriate who keeps crashing and other lovable types populate this lively film; and the feel of this stylish and glowing film is almost epic, both in its scope and realization. Credit must go to Jack Bear and Donald Brooks for their costume creations, Reg Allen and Jack Stevens for sets, Fernando Carrere for another beautiful production design, Henry Mancini for his sensitive and appropriate musical score, and to Russell Harlan for his shining cinematography. In the beautiful footage, the principal actors are Julie Andrews as Lili, Rock Hudson as Larrabee, Keremy Kemp outstanding as Lili's Uncle Kurt, Michael Witney, Lance Percival as the inebriate pilot, gorgeous Gloria Paul as Lili's stripteasing rival, and many other fine actors in smaller parts. It is hard to say enough nice things about the pace, or the cleverness of the just-this-side-of broad comedy; this element is introduced by Edwards to leaven the horrors of actual warfare, to example the almost comic-opera approach with which men made war back in a more innocent-minded era of human civilization.. This comedy also helps prepare the way for Lili's conversion from uncritical acceptance of a duty to the German state to acceptance of the reality of what she is doing and potentially what she may be causing. This is a rare "sense-of-life" film about Lili's "Americanization", her assertion of herself in the real world and then among others before tragedy can happen. It is haunting, I find, and beautiful in many ways. I consider it to be Blake Edwards'masterpiece of directing; and under the title "The Americanization of Lili" I believe with hardly any changes it might have been recognized as the polished sapphire of a film it is by every standard I know.
1	Julie Andrews plays a German spy who falls in love with an American pilot Rock Hudson, while on an assignment for Germany.<br /><br />The songs are beautiful. The two are well-paired. Julie demonstrates a more temperamental side in this film than the nice girl she normally plays. <br /><br />A half-German, half-English girl who sings beautiful and entertains the troops in WW I, Julie sings some endearing Mancini songs. <br /><br />I loved the film. Some will say it's a "chick-flick," but so what. It's wonderful. <br /><br />Supporting characters are somewhat stereotyped. It may not be up to Rock's performance in Pillow Talk, Magnificent Obsession, or Giant.<br /><br />Blake Edwards shot the film in Ireland and authentic WW I -type planes were used in the film. Scenery for England and France is absolutely gorgeous.
1	Robert McKimson's 'Acrobatty Bunny' is one of the director's finest shorts. Although the circus-based setting may evoke hideous memories of McKimson's dreadful 'Big Top Bunny', 'Acrobatty Bunny' is in fact nowhere near as dull as that travesty. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a ferocious lion, 'Acrobatty Bunny' is fresh and funny from the outset, not to mention extremely attractive to look at. There's a classic scene in which Bugs takes a strangled elevator ride out of his hole only to emerge directly into the jaws of the lion. In a brilliant Disney parody, he hollers "Pinocchio" down the lion's throat! This brilliant opening is a sign of things to come. There are some expertly choreographed antics in and around the lion's cage to begin with, followed by a hilariously grotesque and irritating rendition of 'Laugh Clown Laugh' which, as a child, I used to impersonate regularly! All this culminates in a short acrobatic sequence which gives the cartoon its name. I've never been fond of the circus as a setting for cartoons and find it usually makes for a dull and predictable set of gags but 'Acrobatty Bunny' breaks from the mould and the result is an exhilaratingly funny short which stands amongst McKimson's best.
1	Once again, Bugs Bunny sacred home is violated by careless people. This time the traveling circus put a lion's cage right over the rabbit's hole. So Bug's has to come out of the hole and face Nero (that's the name of the lion), which he does in his usual hilarious style. After a slow and rocky beginning to the cart, it keeps getting better and better and winds up being quite hilarious. Nero the lion turns out to be a pretty good foil for Bugs and that turns this short into a highly memorable one, if still shorn of a classic. This animated short can be found on Disk 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3.<br /><br />My Grade: A-
1	Our family (and the entire sold out sneak preview audience) enjoyed "The Guardian". Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher gave convincing performances as the fictional helicopter rescue swimmer characters Ben and Jake. After seeing this movie, you can't help but imagine how difficult it must be to graduate from the USCG helicopter rescue swimmer school and one day take part in real rescues.<br /><br />Even though this is a fictional movie, it delivered rather convincing virtues of team spirit, dedication and bravery exhibited by all the members of the actual U. S. Coast Guard.<br /><br />The special effects used to create the rescue scenes were incredible. You actually felt like you were taking part in a real rescue.<br /><br />I feel the movie could have been made without the "Hollywood" bar scene (when you see the movie, you might agree) since the real Coast Guard does not condone such behavior. <br /><br />Very entertaining, very action packed, definitely worth seeing. Thank you, U. S. Coast Guard and the REAL helicopter rescue swimmers, "So Others May Live". I'd highly recommend this movie to everyone.
1	The "good news" is that the circus is in town. The "bad news" is that's right over Bugs Bunny's underground home. He wakes up as his place shakes like an earthquake hit it, when workers pound stakes into the ground and elephants stomp by, etc.<br /><br />To be more specific, the lions' cage is place exactly over Bugs' hole. The lion sniffs food, and by process of elimination, figures out it's a rabbit. Bugs, curious what all the racket is about, winds his way through the tunnel and winds up in the lion's mouth.<br /><br />I'll say for thing for BB: he is totally fearless, at least in this cartoon, and at least for 30 seconds. When he comes to his senses, he runs like crazy and we get a lion-versus-a rabbit battle the rest of the way. Once again, Bugs faces dumb opponent, one he calls "Nero," but lion is fierce and Bugs will need all his wits and somewhat-fake bravado to fend off this beast.<br /><br />About half the gags are stupid and the other half funny, but always fast-moving, colorful and good enough to recommend. I mean, it's not everyday you can see a lion on a trapeze, or doing a hula dance!
1	A savage, undisciplined lion has been put behind bars for a circus carnival. He suddenly notices a hole on the floor of his cell, then sticks his nose into this hole to snuff it. At first he thinks Bugs Bunny's home is belong to a camel; yet when he wakes Bugs up from his sleep hoisting him up to the ground, there he meets with Bugs, his next trainer. <br /><br />If you ever wonder how Bugs would turn a savage lion into a Hawaiian hula dancer with traditional skirts on, you should watch this cartoon. Director Bob McKimson offers endless laughters by means of absurd and unexpected demonstrative humour. <br /><br />The signature scenes include:<br /><br />1/ the look of Bugs Bunny's home, cross-referencing to Donald Duck with the B.B. name acronym on the headboard of Bugs's bed <br /><br />2/ Bugs Bunny's short journey with the mine hoist climbing up to the ground floor <br /><br />3/ When Nero the Lion calls his friend the Elephant for help, Bugs uses a toy mouse to scare the Elephant; since the Elephant needed a broom to outpower that toy mouse, he uses Nero as a broom! <br /><br />4/ Bugs becoming a clown with the proper costume and make-up and the practical clown jokes that he makes <br /><br />5/ the trapeze scene while Nero chasing after Bugs <br /><br />6/ the famous Human Cannonball scene after which Nero the Lion starts dancing Hawaiian Hula<br /><br />The magic moments which keep Acrobatty Bunny fresh at all times in our memory:<br /><br />1/ When Bugs comes out of his bunny hole, he thinks he's in the Pinocchio tale; and starts acting to save Pinocchio out of the giant whale's stomach <br /><br />2/ When the Lion roars to scare him, Bugs replies back to him with roaring<br /><br />3/ Bugs arguing with the Lion for he's making so much noise, then finding a piece of wood to rub it against the iron bars while singing in order to make more noise than him <br /><br />4/ Wearing rubber heels at the circus, Bugs starts to bounce like toy rabbits and causes Nero to bounce! <br /><br />Those are the 10 main reasons that keeps Acrobatty Bunny as a Bugs Bunny classic and can be found in the "Bugs Bunny Classics' MGM/UA Video (1989)"
1	When the circus comes to town and places the lion's cage directly over Bugs Bunny's home, Bugs ends up somewhere in the range right between freaked out and intrepid. Despite the title "Acrobatty Bunny", it's only at the end when Bugs and the lion perform acrobatics. But even leading up to that, it's quite funny what Bugs does to escape getting eaten; somehow, he always manages to use the other character's weakness against him, and then pull any convenient object out of thin air! Bugs later ended up in the circus in "Big Top Bunny". I liked this one better, as the latter got drug down a little bit by giving the antagonist an Eastern European accent (I know that it was during the Cold War, but still). I recommend this one.<br /><br />And with the end, we can affirm that it'll never be Aloha Oe for this cartoon.
1	Channel zapping one night I just caught the start of this movie and it hooked me from the beginning. It tells the sad story of an adopted child, Adam, whose mother left him after birth. The movie takes us through his childhood, and makes us discover a very disturbing fact from Adam's past. I will not reveal more, but it is a very in-depth movie and will intrigue you for sure. This was one of Jimmy Smits best roles in my opinion.
1	A very good film, focusing on a very important issue. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a very serious birth defect that is totally preventable. If more families saw this film, perhaps more children would not end up like Adam. Jimmie Smits performs in one of his best roles ever. This is an excellent movie that takes into account a very special family with very important needs. This is not unlike thousands of families that exist in the United States today. There are children struggling with this world wide. The really important point here is that it all could have been prevented. More people should see this movie and take what it has to say seriously. It is well done, with important messages, handled in a graceful way.
1	This was a excellent movie. I deal with a child who I am raising that has FAE and watching this movie was more than word can explain. I also purchased the book and it was great. I would like to have a copy for my own use and so I can have my son's teachers watch it also.I would like to know if anyone could sell me a copy of this movie, let me use it for a time or refer me to someone where I could purchase it. Thank You, Myra I would recommend this movie to anyone who deal with children/adults with special ability's. This movie should be shown again on TV. The team of doctor's that have been tracking my son would also like to have a copy. His special Ed teacher has also asked me to try to locate a copy that he can have or that he can borrow.<br /><br />Thank You
1	This movie was everything but boring. It deals with reality. To the people who think this movie was boring, open your eyes to the real problems in our society. Our children are dying. The consequences of alcohol and drug abuse are not to be ignored. I work in a correctional facility as a chemical dependency counselor,and i deal with these problems every day. People of all ages and all walks of life are effected by the consequences of their alcohol and drug abuse. It destroys families, hurts people and leads to serious brain damage,all kinds of health problems, and death. It is all preventable. This movie should be shown in every high-school in the world. If anyone owns this movie and wants to sell it, or sell me a copy, please e-mail me at: Ottenbreit2@netzero.net thank you
1	It has been years since I have been privileged to see this movie on TV. I only wish I could contact someone to see it again. I married a man with three children and two had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I didn't' realize this but seeing this movie helped me understand more about their problems and more about how I can love them and help them overcome their difficulties. My step-son is now 35 and thank the Lord he has blossomed wonderfully but still has many after affects of being born by an alcoholic mother. We speak every month to Rehab patients with alcohol and drug addictions and this sharing has truly made monumental changes in their behaviors and endeavors to start out a new life not addicted to drugs and alcohol. Please please let me know how I can get a copy VHS or DVD of this movie or when they will show the movie again on TV. If you have not been in these shoes, you probably could never understand its value. Thank you so very much.
1	This story focuses on the birth defect known as FAS, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a disease diagnosed too often among Native Americans. In spite of the down-beat nature of this drama, the great script and the characterizations move the story along very well. This is arguably Smits best performance.
1	This is a piece of cinematic beauty, and it shows more of Quebec culture to others than probably any other work to come from la belle province. It takes everybody into a first-person experience of the culture, to the point that you wish you glued your hair in place and lived, breathed, and ate everything Maurice Richard. The book does this as well as the short, and I'm glad that in all the time I did spend studying French in high school, this was required reading in both languages.<br /><br />I thought it was brilliant to have Roch Carrier narrate this story. His molasses-thick accent brought a lot of realism to the story. The animation was good, as well, very surrealist, which brings attention to the idea of this being a whimsical daydream, fancying over better days gone by.<br /><br />Again, as a symbol of culture quebecoise, this is unsurpassed. One can almost smell the tourtiere being cooked slowly over a wood stove. This whole film deserves endless praise for making people proud to be Canadian, and encourage us all to appreciate the finer things of family and our roots. I'm from Ontario, and this film made me fall in love with Quebec. Maurice Richard va toujours vivre dans nos coeurs.
1	I'm a Petty Officer 1st Class (E-6) and have been in the USCG for 6 years and feel that this movie strongly represents the Coast Guard. There were only a few scenes that were far fetched. The most far-fetched was when PO Fischer (Kutcher) went down inside of the sinking vessel to pull the vessel's captain out of the engine room... that would never happen. Swimmers are not allowed to go inside of any vessel no matter the circumstances. Second, the Command Center (supposedly in Kodiak), it looked more like a NASA command center... we don't have any gear that hi-tech. Third, the Captain of the Airstation would not be running the search & rescue cases with like 10 people on watch. In reality it would be an E-6 or E-7 as the SAR Controller and maybe 2 other support personnel like an assist SAR Controller & a Radio Watchstander. Otherwise the movie was dead on, I think they should have incorporated more of the other rates in the CG and their roles in search & rescue instead of just Aviation based rates. Some of the scenes from "A" school reminded me of my days their and the dumb stuff I did and got in trouble for in my younger days.
1	I throughly enjoyed this short, even as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. <br /><br />Director Sheldon Cohen and Narrator Roch Carrier captured all of the boy's emotions perfectly. From the feelings he had for his hero, Maurice "Rocket" Richard, to the excitement, anticipation and hope of getting a new Montreal Canadiens sweater soon, to the look of horror on his face when he got his sweater from his mother; A Toronto Maple Leafs sweater was priceless and the shame of having to wear this dreadful (in his eyes) blue and white Toronto Maple Leafs sweater; Not the rouge, bleu and blanc of the Montreal Canadiens with Richard's number nine, like his old sweater. And worst of all, his Mum made him wear this Maple Leafs sweater out of the house. You could envision and anticipate the ridicule he would get from his friends when he hit the ice wearing that sweater before he got there.<br /><br />I was laughing the whole time and this is one of the best animated shorts I've seen.<br /><br />
1	This movie made by the NFBC was made in honor of the Montreal Canadians dynasty years in the 50's,60's and 70's. My 5th grade teacher played this in class in honor of my 11th birthday in 1987 and also to celebrate my return from a serious facial injury in 1986. I have been a Canadians fan for 29 of my 30 years of life. on a scale of 1-10, I give this film a 117. All hockey fans should see this as I hope it will be placed in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and shown at the Bell Centre in Montreal or here in Edmonton at Rexall Place. Watch this film with your family it is a great movie. I also recommend the book in both French and English. Go Habs Go.
1	I would assume that this film would get rave reviews in Canada--particularly in Quebec. That's because the Canadians have traditionally loved hockey and the Montreal Canadians were like gods in Canada for decades. As an American, the closest thing we have to them are the New York Yankees. If you are a fan, then they are the greatest and winningest team in history. If you are not a fan, then they are Satan's team!! Well, at least that's how it was as I grew up in Washington, DC in regard to the Dallas Cowboys. So I am pretty sure when this film was shown up North that everyone immediately had a strong emotional reaction--their national sport AND the closest thing they have to a national team in the NHL.<br /><br />Now the cartoon itself is moderately interesting when it begins and the main character talks about growing up around Ottawa and rooting for the Canadians AND Maurice "the Rocket" Richard. However, when his mother accidentally buys him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and forces him to wear it, I knew right away what a horrible and shameful thing this would be to a little boy. This ability to connect to the character--even though he lives in a far off land is what made this a very special short film. The way the other kids treated him and his conversation with God at the end make this a lovely nostalgic film. Very clever and memorable.
1	A boy who adores Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens receives, much to his horror, a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater in the mail. I recently watched this in a class in which few of the students were interested in hockey, but nearly everyone knew about Maurice Richard and the Toronto/Montreal rivalry. Highly entertaining, amusing, and accurate.
1	This marvelous short will hit home with everyone who, as a child, specifically asked for something because it was hip or cool, only to be given something that would mark you for life with your peers and were told by your Mom or Dad (or both) that it didn't matter, as you earnestly began considering enlisting in a Witness Protection Program in order to avoid ridicule. For those U.S. residents who don't get the horror because you don't follow hockey, it's like a Dallas Cowboy fan getting a Washington Redskins jersey or a Yankees fan getting a Red Sox jersey. It isn't pretty. For our European friends, think of two great rival football (soccer to us) clubs and imagine a fan of one getting a jersey from the other. Ouch!!! NFB of C outdid themselves here!<br /><br />Une hommage du Maurice "Rocket" Richard, merci, M. Richard.
1	Animated shorts just don't get much better than this wonderful Canadian film. This short feature is dripping with Canadian references, and so, this film will probably be appreciated by Canadians most of all. But the basic story is universal, and it is told lovingly by writer Roch Carrier. It is a hilarious story that I have known for quite sometime, and I was recently fortunate enough to see it again, so I simply HAD to write a hearty recommendation for it. This is a masterpiece, and a must-see whether or not you are Canadian.
1	Having been raised in Canada, I saw this short many times mostly on the CBC. I have seen it numerous times, at many ages in my life, and each time the reactions are the same. It is a joyous bittersweet, beautifully animated film that tugs at your heart. I am sure I have it on some VHS tape somewhere digging around.<br /><br />Every kid growing up can relate to the situation, and wanting to fit in with your favourite idols. The scene and look on the kids face when his mom is filling out the Eatons catalogue and his jumping around the room is priceless. I haven't seen someone capture that carefree mood of youth on film as well as this little short has.<br /><br />Sure I am a Montreal habs fan, and that makes my appreciation for it more special. But in the end it is the nostalgic look and feel of pond hockey, and the memories of your family telling you that you should be greatful for what you get even if it isn't exactly what you wanted. And oh yeah, the animation is beautiful too ;)<br /><br />Rating 10 out of 10
1	Well, I have to disagree with Leonard Maltin on this animated short. He loves it and claimed it was hilarious. I enjoyed it but didn't see any humor. He doesn't even like hockey or know anything about it, and still loved the story. Living right across the border from Canada, I have watched hockey for 50 years both there and in Buffalo....but I didn't think much of this cartoon. Oh, it was interesting and I know what would happen if you wore a Toronto jersey up in the Quebec area - disaster! That especially holds true in the glory years of Les Canadians. However, that doesn't make the story funny. <br /><br />Back in the 1950s, everyone in the Quebec provinces idolized the Montreal Canadians and their star player, Maurice Richard, and everyone wanted to be like him. When his mother orders a new sweater, it has the Toronto Maple Leafs emblem on it, so the kid doesn't want to be caught dead wearing it.. When he finally does and heads to the local rink, he gets ostracized from the rest of his hockey buddies. What's so funny about that? I could see the same thing happening to a kid in Boston who is Red Sox die-hard and his mom gets him Yankees shirt! Horrors! You couldn't wear it, and vice-versa.<br /><br />Maybe to someone who doesn't follow sports at all, like Maltin, this situation seems odd and humorous to him...but it's a fact of life or any bit-time sports fan and his favorite team. It was an interesting story, and totally believable, but nothing that made me laugh.<br /><br />The art was fun to look at throughout, almost like looking at a long series of crayon paintings done by a talented school kid. The French Canadian accent was good, too. This movie was part of the DVD "Leonard Maltin's Animation Favorites From The National Film Board Of Canada.
1	This short deals with a severely critical writing teacher whose undiplomatic criticism extends into his everyday life. When he learns why that's not a good idea, we learn a bit about the beautiful craft of writing that he's been lecturing on.
1	This movie, with all its complexity and subtlety, makes for one of the most thought-provoking short films I have ever seen. The topics it addresses are ugly, cynical, and at times, even macabre, but the film remains beautiful in its language, artful with its camera angles, and gorgeous in its style, skillfully recreating the short story of the same name written by a master of short stories, Tobias Wolff.<br /><br />Not wishing to spoil anything of the movie, I won't go into any details, other than to say that this movie is magnificent in and of itself. It takes pride in what it does, and does it well. It shows the most important memories of life, all of which can be topped by the single most elusive feeling: unexpected bliss. This movie, of its own volition, has created in me the same feelings the main character (Tom Noonan) felt when words transformed his very existence, and that is one impressive feat.
1	I've seen this story before but my kids haven't. Boy with troubled past joins military, faces his past, falls in love and becomes a man. The mentor this time is played perfectly by Kevin Costner; An ordinary man with common everyday problems who lives an extraordinary conviction, to save lives. After losing his team he takes a teaching position training the next generation of heroes. The young troubled recruit is played by Kutcher. While his scenes with the local love interest are a tad stiff and don't generate enough heat to melt butter, he compliments Costner well. I never really understood Sela Ward as the neglected wife and felt she should of wanted Costner to quit out of concern for his safety as opposed to her selfish needs. But her presence on screen is a pleasure. The two unaccredited stars of this movie are the Coast Guard and the Sea. Both powerful forces which should not be taken for granted in real life or this movie. The movie has some slow spots and could have used the wasted 15 minutes to strengthen the character relationships. But it still works. The rescue scenes are intense and well filmed and edited to provide maximum impact. This movie earns the audience applause. And the applause of my two sons.
0	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	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	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	I of course saw the previews for this at the beginning of some other Lion's Gate extravaganza, so of course it was only the best parts and therefore looked intriguing. And it is, to a point. A young college student (Sarah)is finding riddles all over the place and is becoming obsessed with answering them, and in doing so she's unwittingly becoming involved in some game. Now that's fairly intriguing right there but unfortunately it all gets rather muddled and becomes so complicated that the viewer (like myself) will most likely become frustrated. Characters appear with little introduction and you're not really sure who they are or why Sarah knows them or is hanging out with them. All of this has something to do with this woman who tried to drown a young boy years ago and her reason for that was that it's "all part of the design". In reality, it's all part of the "very sketchy script" and when the film is over you'll find yourself feeling that you've lost about an hour and a half of your life that you want back for more productive uses of your time, like cleaning the bathroom, for instance. 4 out of 10.
0	too bad this movie isn't. While "Nemesis Game" is mildly entertaining, I found it hard to suspend my disbelief the whole length of the movie, especially the situations that Sara was putting herself into. Are we supposed to believe that:<br /><br />1) this hot chick is going to go slumming unarmed around abandoned buildings and dark subway tunnels in the middle of the night just to solve some riddles?<br /><br />2) the protagonists are supposedly such experts that they play riddle games for fun, but don't put the whole "I Never Sinned" riddle together until the very end...and then...and then...get this...she has to do the whole mirror thing to finally put the pieces together?? I know it was the filmmaker's device to show the audience what was going on, but do they really think we're that stupid?<br /><br />3) when Vern and Sara go to the Chez M to question the blonde, there is not ONE topless chick in the whole building. Nada. C'mon. I know it's Canada, but I would expect more from a country that gave us Shannon Tweed.<br /><br />And anyone else notice that when Vern was surfing the Web and found that riddlezone site, that when he moused over the link the cursor stayed an arrow, and didn't turn into a little hand (LIKE ALL CURSORS DO WHEN YOU CLICK ON A HYPERLINK)?!? I mean, if you're gonna have the internet play such a prominent role in your movie, at least get the little things right. Geez.
0	This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is … I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid "riddles", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess…. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water… forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" behind that smirk on their faces… just horrible, HORRIBLE.<br /><br />I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.
0	The Forgotten (AKA: Don't Look In The Basement) is a very cheaply made and very old looking horror movie.<br /><br />The story is very slow and never really reaches anything worth getting excited about.<br /><br />The patients at the asylum are embarrassingly funny especially Sam and the old woman who always quotes an old saying to everyone. (Look out for the bit when she gets close to the camera, tell me you can watch without laughing!).<br /><br />Now the gore is very poor looking, with the blood looking pink in many scenes so it doesn't really deserve its place on the video nasties list!.<br /><br />Overall if you aren't looking for a fantastic horror film and have some time to spare then it's worth a watch.
0	Dr Stephens (Micheal Harvey) runs a mental asylum. He has a different approach to the insane. He conducts unorthodox methods of treatment. He treats everyone like family, there are no locks on the patients doors and he lets some of the inmates act out their twisted fantasies. He lets Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin) dress and act as a soldier and Harriet (Camilla Carr) be a mother to a doll, including letting her put it to bed in a cot. Dr. Stevens is outside letting Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross) chop a log up with an axe, it turns out to be a bad move as once Dr. Stevens back is turned the Judge plants the axe in his shoulder. Soon after Nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the Sanitarium having arranged an interview with Dr. Stevens about a possible job. She is met by the head Nurse, Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick as Anne McAdams) and is offered a trail position. She gets to know and becomes well liked among the patients. However things eventually start to turn sour, the phone lines are cut, an old lady named Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams) has her tongue cut out and she starts to get a strange feeling that things just aren't right somehow. Then, one night all the Sanitariums dark secrets are violently revealed. Produced and directed by S.f. Brownrigg this film has a great central idea which builds into a cool twist ending, but ultimately is a bit of a chore to sit through because of it's low budget restrictions and a rather slow script by Tim Pope. There are just too many long boring stretches of dialogue by the inmates, not a lot really happens until the final twenty odd minutes. The film has no real visual quality as it's set entirely in the Sanitarium and it's grounds which is basically just a big bland house in the middle of nowhere. There's no graphic gore in it, a few splashes of blood here and there and thats yer lot. There's a bit of nudity, but like the gore not much. The acting is pretty strong, especially Holotik and Weenick. The photography is flat and unexciting and I can't even remember what the music was like. The twist ending is great, but it just takes far too long to get to it. A film that had a lot of potential that was probably held back by it's budget. OK I guess, but I think it would have worked a lot better if the story had been turned into a half an hour 'Tales form the Crypt' episode.
0	Low budget horror movie. If you don't raise your expectations too high, you'll probably enjoy this little flick. Beginning and end are pretty good, middle drags at times and seems to go nowhere for long periods as we watch the goings on of the insane that add atmosphere but do not advance the plot. Quite a bit of gore. I enjoyed Bill McGhee's performance which he made quite believable for such a low budget picture, he managed to carry the movie at times when nothing much seemed to be happening. Nurse Charlotte Beale, played by Jesse Lee, played her character well so be prepared to want to slap her toward the end! She makes some really stupid mistakes but then, that's what makes these low budget movies so good! I would have been out of that place and five states away long before she even considered that it might be a good idea to leave! If you enjoy this movie, try Committed from 1988 which is basically a rip off of this movie.
0	Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown chunks! Every single one! When will I ever learn?<br /><br />Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's protégé)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!<br /><br />As I said, when will I ever learn?<br /><br />I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital offense to torture audiences like this!<br /><br />Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she "plays" God) is even more shameless than her character.<br /><br />At least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, I am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!
0	Ben, (Rupert Grint), is a deeply unhappy adolescent, the son of his unhappily married parents. His father, (Nicholas Farrell), is a vicar and his mother, (Laura Linney), is ... well, let's just say she's a somewhat hypocritical soldier in Jesus' army. It's only when he takes a summer job as an assistant to a foul-mouthed, eccentric, once-famous and now-forgotten actress Evie Walton, (Julie Walters), that he finally finds himself in true 'Harold and Maude' fashion. Of course, Evie is deeply unhappy herself and it's only when these two sad sacks find each other that they can put their mutual misery aside and hit the road to happiness.<br /><br />Of course it's corny and sentimental and very predictable but it has a hard side to it, too and Walters, who could sleep-walk her way through this sort of thing if she wanted, is excellent. It's when she puts the craziness to one side and finds the pathos in the character, (like hitting the bottle and throwing up in the sink), that she's at her best. The problem is she's the only interesting character in the film (and it's not because of the script which doesn't do anybody any favours). Grint, on the other hand, isn't just unhappy; he's a bit of a bore as well while Linney's starched bitch is completely one-dimensional. (Still, she's got the English accent off pat). The best that can be said for it is that it's mildly enjoyable - with the emphasis on the mildly.
0	Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.<br /><br />Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.<br /><br />Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.<br /><br />One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.<br /><br />The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"<br /><br />The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. <br /><br />The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?<br /><br />The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.<br /><br />How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.
0	I just finished watching this movie and am disappointed to say that I didn't enjoy it a bit. It is so slow Slow and uninteresting. This kid from Harry Potter plays a shy teenager with an rude mother, and then one day the rude mother tells the kid to find a job so that they could accommodate an old guy apparently having no place to live has started to live with his family and therefore the kid goes to work for a old lady. And this old lady who is living all alone teaches him about girls, driving car and life! I couldn't get how an 18 year old guy enjoy spending time with an awful lady in her 80s. Sorry if my comments on this movie has bothered people who might have enjoyed it, I could be wrong as I am not British and may not understand the social and their family structure and way of life. Mostly the movie is made for the British audience.
0	This cheap, grainy-filmed Italian flick is about a couple of inheritors of a manor in the Italian countryside who head up to the house to stay, and then find themselves getting killed off by ghosts of people killed in that house.<br /><br />I wasn't impressed by this. It wasn't really that scary, mostly just the way a cheap Italian film should be. A girl, her two cousins, and one cousin's girlfriend, head to this huge house for some reason (I couldn't figure out why) and are staying there, cleaning up and checking out the place. Characters come in and out of the film, and it's quite boring at points, and the majority of deaths are quite rushed. The girlfriend is hit by a car when fleeing the house after having a dream of her death, and the scene is quite good, but then things get slow again, until a confusing end, when the male cousins are killed together in some weird way, and this weirdo guy (I couldn't figure out who he was during the movie, or maybe I just don't remember) goes after this one girl, attacking her, until finally this other girl kills him off. Hate to give away the ending, but oh well. The female cousin decides to stay at the house and watch over it, and they show scenes of her living there years later. The end. You really aren't missing anything, and anyway, you probably won't find this anywhere, so lucky you.
0	Now, I LOVE Italian horror films. The cheesier they are, the better. However, this is not cheesy Italian. This is week-old spaghetti sauce with rotting meatballs. It is amateur hour on every level. There is no suspense, no horror, with just a few drops of blood scattered around to remind you that you are in fact watching a horror film. The "special effects" consist of the lights changing to red whenever the ghost (or whatever it was supposed to be) is around, and a string pulling bed sheets up and down. Oooh, can you feel the chills? The DVD quality is that of a VHS transfer (which actually helps the film more than hurts it). The dubbing is below even the lowest "bad Italian movie" standards and I gave it one star just because the dialogue is so hilarious! And what do we discover when she finally DOES look in the attic (in a scene that is daytime one minute and night the next)...well, I won't spoil it for anyone who really wants to see, but let's just say that it isn't very "novel"!
0	A group of heirs to a mysterious old mansion find out that they have to live in it as part of a clause in the will or be disinherited, but they soon find out of its history of everybody whom had lived there before them having either died in weird accidents or having had killed each other.<br /><br />You've seen it all before, and this one is too low-budget and slow paced to be scary, and doesn't have any real surprises in the climax. No special effects or gore to speak of, in fact the only really amusing thing about the whole film is the quality of the English dubbing, which at times is as bad as a cheap martial arts movie.<br /><br />3 out of 10, pretty low in the pecking order of 80's haunted house movies.
0	I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!<br /><br />This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the main admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.<br /><br />The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.<br /><br />From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.<br /><br />There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.
0	I first watched this movie back in the mid/late 80's, when I was a kid. We couldn't even get all the way through it. The dialog, the acting, everything about it was just beyond lame.<br /><br />Here are a few examples... imagine these spoken real dramatically, way over-acted: "Oreegon? You're going to Oreegon? Why would anyone want to go to Oreegon?"<br /><br />"Survivalists? Nobody ever told us about any survivalists!"<br /><br />This movie was SO bad, my sister and I rented it again for her 16th birthday party, just so our friends could sit around and laugh at how awful it was. I don't think we were able to finish it then either!
0	Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's character look weak. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't see the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work.
0	This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.
0	Honestly awful film, bad editing, awful lighting, dire dialog and scrappy screenplay.<br /><br />The lighting at is so bad there's moments you can't even see what's going on, I even tried to playing with the contrast and brightness so I could see something but that didn't help.<br /><br />They must have found the script in a bin, the character development is just as awful and while you hardly expect much from a Jean-Claude Van Damme film this one manages to hit an all time low. You can't even laugh at the cheesy'ness.<br /><br />The directing and editing are also terrible, the whole film follows an extremely tired routine and fails at every turn as it bumbles through the plot that is so weak it's just unreal.<br /><br />There's not a lot else to say other than it's really bad and nothing like Jean-Claude Van Damme's earlier work which you could enjoy.<br /><br />Avoid like the plaque, frankly words fail me in condemning this "film".
0	Technically I'am a Van Damme Fan, or I was. this movie is so bad that I hated myself for wasting those 90 minutes. Do not let the name Isaac Florentine (Undisputed II) fool you, I had big hopes for this one, depending on what I saw in (Undisputed II), man.. was I wrong ??! all action fans wanted a big comeback for the classic action hero, but i guess we wont be able to see that soon, as our hero keep coming with those (going -to-a-border - far-away-town-and -kill -the-bad-guys- than-comeback- home) movies I mean for God's sake, we are in 2008, and they insist on doing those disappointing movies on every level. Why ??!!! Do your self a favor, skip it.. seriously.
0	Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like "Star!" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until "The Tamarind Seed" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from ****
0	It actually pains me to say it, but this movie was horrible on every level. The blame does not lie entirely with Van Damme as you can see he tried his best, but let's face it, he's almost fifty, how much more can you ask of him? I find it so hard to believe that the same people who put together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial arts movie in years, created this. Everything from the plot, to the dialog, to the editing, to the overall acting was just horribly put together and in many cases outright boring and nonsensical. Scott Adkins who's fight scenes seemed more like a demo reel, was also terribly underused and not even the main villain which is such a shame because 1) He is more than capable of playing that role and 2) The actual main villain was not only not intimidating at all but also quite annoying. Again, not blaming Van Damme. I will always be a fan, but avoid this one.
0	Isaac Florentine has made some of the best western Martial Arts action movies ever produced. In particular US Seals 2, Cold Harvest, Special Forces and Undisputed 2 are all action classics. You can tell Isaac has a real passion for the genre and his films are always eventful, creative and sharp affairs, with some of the best fight sequences an action fan could hope for. In particular he has found a muse with Scott Adkins, as talented an actor and action performer as you could hope for. This is borne out with Special Forces and Undisputed 2, but unfortunately The Shepherd just doesn't live up to their abilities.<br /><br />There is no doubt that JCVD looks better here fight-wise than he has done in years, especially in the fight he has (for pretty much no reason) in a prison cell, and in the final showdown with Scott, but look in his eyes. JCVD seems to be dead inside. There's nothing in his eyes at all. It's like he just doesn't care about anything throughout the whole film. And this is the leading man.<br /><br />There are other dodgy aspects to the film, script-wise and visually, but the main problem is that you are utterly unable to empathise with the hero of the film. A genuine shame as I know we all wanted this film to be as special as it genuinely could have been. There are some good bits, mostly the action scenes themselves. This film had a terrific director and action choreographer, and an awesome opponent for JCVD to face down. This could have been the one to bring the veteran action star back up to scratch in the balls-out action movie stakes.<br /><br />Sincerely a shame that this didn't happen.
0	I had high hopes for this one until they changed the name to 'The Shepherd : Border Patrol, the lamest movie name ever, what was wrong with just 'The Shepherd'. This is a by the numbers action flick that tips its hat at many classic Van Damme films. There is a nice bit of action in a bar which reminded me of hard target and universal soldier but directed with no intensity or flair which is a shame. There is one great line about 'being p*ss drunk and carrying a rabbit' and some OK action scenes let down by the cheapness of it all. A lot of the times the dialogue doesn't match the characters mouth and the stunt men fall down dead a split second before even being shot. The end fight is one of the better Van Damme fights except the Director tries to go a bit too John Woo and fails also introducing flashbacks which no one really cares about just gets in the way of the action which is the whole point of a van Damme film.<br /><br />Not good, not bad, just average generic action.
0	First off let me say, If you haven't enjoyed a Van Damme movie since bloodsport, you probably will not like this movie. Most of these movies may not have the best plots or best actors but I enjoy these kinds of movies for what they are. This movie is much better than any of the movies the other action guys (Segal and Dolph) have thought about putting out the past few years. Van Damme is good in the movie, the movie is only worth watching to Van Damme fans. It is not as good as Wake of Death (which i highly recommend to anyone of likes Van Damme) or In hell but, in my opinion it's worth watching. It has the same type of feel to it as Nowhere to Run. Good fun stuff!
0	STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Former New Orleans homicide cop Jack Robideaux (Jean Claude Van Damme) is re-assigned to Columbus, a small but violent town in Mexico to help the police there with their efforts to stop a major heroin smuggling operation into their town. The culprits turn out to be ex-military, lead by former commander Benjamin Meyers (Stephen Lord, otherwise known as Jase from East Enders) who is using a special method he learned in Afghanistan to fight off his opponents. But Jack has a more personal reason for taking him down, that draws the two men into an explosive final showdown where only one will walk away alive.<br /><br />After Until Death, Van Damme appeared to be on a high, showing he could make the best straight to video films in the action market. While that was a far more drama oriented film, with The Shepherd he has returned to the high-kicking, no brainer action that first made him famous and has sadly produced his worst film since Derailed. It's nowhere near as bad as that film, but what I said still stands.<br /><br />A dull, predictable film, with very little in the way of any exciting action. What little there is mainly consists of some limp fight scenes, trying to look cool and trendy with some cheap slo-mo/sped up effects added to them that sadly instead make them look more desperate. Being a Mexican set film, director Isaac Florentine has tried to give the film a Robert Rodriguez/Desperado sort of feel, but this only adds to the desperation.<br /><br />VD gives a particularly uninspired performance and given he's never been a Robert De Niro sort of actor, that can't be good. As the villain, Lord shouldn't expect to leave the beeb anytime soon. He gets little dialogue at the beginning as he struggles to muster an American accent but gets mysteriously better towards the end. All the supporting cast are equally bland, and do nothing to raise the films spirits at all.<br /><br />This is one shepherd that's strayed right from the flock. *
0	its a totally average film with a few semi-alright action sequences that make the plot seem a little better and remind the viewer of the classic van dam films. parts of the plot don't make sense and seem to be added in to use up time. the end plot is that of a very basic type that doesn't leave the viewer guessing and any twists are obvious from the beginning. the end scene with the flask backs don't make sense as they are added in and seem to have little relevance to the history of van dam's character. not really worth watching again, bit disappointed in the end production, even though it is apparent it was shot on a low budget certain shots and sections in the film are of poor directed quality
0	Worth the entertainment value of a rental, especially if you like action movies. This one features the usual car chases, fights with the great Van Damme kick style, shooting battles with the 40 shell load shotgun, and even terrorist style bombs. All of this is entertaining and competently handled but there is nothing that really blows you away if you've seen your share before.<br /><br />The plot is made interesting by the inclusion of a rabbit, which is clever but hardly profound. Many of the characters are heavily stereotyped -- the angry veterans, the terrified illegal aliens, the crooked cops, the indifferent feds, the bitchy tough lady station head, the crooked politician, the fat federale who looks like he was typecast as the Mexican in a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. All passably acted but again nothing special.<br /><br />I thought the main villains were pretty well done and fairly well acted. By the end of the movie you certainly knew who the good guys were and weren't. There was an emotional lift as the really bad ones got their just deserts. Very simplistic, but then you weren't expecting Hamlet, right? The only thing I found really annoying was the constant cuts to VDs daughter during the last fight scene.<br /><br />Not bad. Not good. Passable 4.
0	I love sci-fi and am willing to put up with a lot. Sci-fi movies/TV are usually underfunded, under-appreciated and misunderstood. I tried to like this, I really did, but it is to good TV sci-fi as Babylon 5 is to Star Trek (the original). Silly prosthetics, cheap cardboard sets, stilted dialogues, CG that doesn't match the background, and painfully one-dimensional characters cannot be overcome with a 'sci-fi' setting. (I'm sure there are those of you out there who think Babylon 5 is good sci-fi TV. It's not. It's clichéd and uninspiring.) While US viewers might like emotion and character development, sci-fi is a genre that does not take itself seriously (cf. Star Trek). It may treat important issues, yet not as a serious philosophy. It's really difficult to care about the characters here as they are not simply foolish, just missing a spark of life. Their actions and reactions are wooden and predictable, often painful to watch. The makers of Earth KNOW it's rubbish as they have to always say "Gene Roddenberry's Earth..." otherwise people would not continue watching. Roddenberry's ashes must be turning in their orbit as this dull, cheap, poorly edited (watching it without advert breaks really brings this home) trudging Trabant of a show lumbers into space. Spoiler. So, kill off a main character. And then bring him back as another actor. Jeeez! Dallas all over again.
0	The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). <br /><br />As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. <br /><br />The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. <br /><br />Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***<br /><br />So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema.
0	I cant explain what a load of rubbish this film is. Like really i cant. its just that bad.<br /><br />plot=crap acting=crap budget=so low its laughable<br /><br />Jesus, its like the only good thing in this movie is the fact the main character was fairly hot.<br /><br />The only people i feel, that think this movie is good are the ones who took part in the film. I'm sure they are not the ones who funded it because there was no money put into this. (HAHAhaha to the bit where there heads get shaved)<br /><br />This movie has already wasted too much of my life so i am not going to waste anymore time writing my review for it.
0	Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR!
0	From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).<br /><br />The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.<br /><br />If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.
0	Breaking Dawn starts in a Californian college as Professor Simon (associate producer Joe Morton) tells his students that they have to perform an intensive six week study of a mental patient in Cape State Hospital as a crucial part of their education, fail & they will never become qualified Doctors. A bright, young, attractive & intelligent student named Eve (Kelly Overton) is given a particularly difficult patient to study. His name is Don Wake (James Haven) & is a convicted killer, he was found covered in blood besides the dead body of a woman (Diane Verona) & her young daughter (Jenette McCurdy). At first Don won't even look at Eve much less talk to her, but like the trooper she is Eve persists in trying to figure him out. Eventually Don begins to talk but what he says frightens Eve, he says that someone is watching her & mentions the name Malachay. Eve then begins to see a dark shadowy figure at her every turn, as Don churns out the conspiracy theories & bizarre statements Eve slowly begins to lose her mind as the line between fantasy & reality becomes more & more blurred. Is there something more to the supposed nonsense that Don talks other than being the insane ravings of a psychiatric patient...?<br /><br />Written & directed by Mark Edwin Robinson I have nothing but negative feelings towards Breaking Dawn. Now, we all like a good twist ending, the sort of ending which catches us unawares, surprises us, works well with the rest of the film & stays in our memory like the cool twist endings to The Sixth Sense (1999) & Fight Club (1999) to name just two good examples & to a lesser extent the endings to films such as Scream (1996) where the identity of the killer comes a nice surprise & isn't that obvious. Then, of course, there are films whose endings spoil everything that has gone before & as an example lets take, oh I don't know lets say Breaking Dawn because I have never seen such an awful ending to a film, never. Breaking Dawn starts out as a decent psychological horror thriller with spooky things starting to happen to Eve, it's not the most action packed film ever by any stretch of the imagination but it holds ones interest, it's not the most absorbing film ever either but it is more than watchable & it's not that bad a film until the twist ending, I have to keep mentioning it because everything else up to that point (which was OK to be fair to it) suddenly becomes irrelevant. I am sure there are people out there who think they have this muddled mess of an ending figured out down to the last detail, all I can say is that no one will be able to explain this thing in a satisfactory way to me & as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make a bit of sense & never will. Breaking Dawn is crap & it's a waste of time watching it to be rewarded with the lamest ending in film history, it's as simple & straight forward as that.<br /><br />Director Robinson doesn't half make a mess of what could have been a decent thriller, maybe he thought what he had shot would play out OK or maybe it was ruined in the editing room but I'd imagine it was more likely down to a rubbish script as he tries to tie all the absurdities together within the space of a few muddled minutes & give us all a happier than happy final shot. He builds the tension quite well during the first 80 odd minutes but it's all for nought at the end of the day.<br /><br />Technically Breaking Dawn is fine & it is generally well made throughout. The acting is pretty good, Overton is nice & easy on the eyes & puts in a decent performance. Was it just me or did the guy who played Don look like John Morghen star of such Italian sleaze classics as Cannibal Apocalypse (1980), City of the Living Dead (1980), The House on the Edge of the Park (1980), Cannibal Ferox (1981), Stagefright (1987) & The Church (1989)? OK, maybe it was just me...<br /><br />Breaking Dawn is rubbish, I hated it all because of the final few minutes. Don't get me wrong it wasn't exactly getting me excited up to that point but it was OK. Definitely one to avoid as far as I'm concerned although it seems to have it's fair share of positive comments on the IMDb...
0	Let me first start out by saying 1 out of 10 is too good for this movie. It's unfortunate that IMDb doesn't have tenths of a star... I watched this abortion of a movie in the middle of the night due to insomnia, and it was absolute garbage. The plot was horrible. The acting was horrible. The movie was utterly boring. "malachi" looked like the Shadow with Alec Baldwin (The Shadow is infinitely better than this as well) The character Eve was so undeveloped and 2 dimensional she didn't even grab my attention. I didn't even know her name was Eve. Don was interesting when he kept his mouth shut. The "TWIST" (if you can call it that) was laughable and pathetic. When it came, the movie had done such a horrid job of building suspense or attachment to any character that I simply thought "Who gives a S***." The only thing that made me even lift an eyebrow about this movie was the fact the med. teacher was Dyson in Terminator 2 (Also a movie that was light years ahead of this motion picture massacre.) Anyone who was involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for wasting 90 minutes of countless people's time. It's no wonder no actor from this movie ever had a fruitful career. In summary.... This movie is so bad, I feel dirty and need a shower. Worst movie in history, Gigli was better, Prom Night (the remake) was better and dare I say it Saw IV was better...........
0	These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the "surprise" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say "it was all in his/her head" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).
0	François Traffaut's "Mississippi Siren" had an unconvincing plot. The screenplay required too much elasticity in suspension of disbelief. The plot went at a glacial pace. It started off in an interesting setting but soon drifted onto the shoals of melodrama that lacked logic or intelligence. What were the critics thinking? This one is overrated even to be described as a loser. Even Catherine Deneuvue, who charmed in "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and "Belle Doe Jour," managed to be simply annoying. <br /><br />We rented this movie at the same time as we rented another Traffaut film. We watched this one first, and found it to be so bad that we sent the other one back unseen at the same time.
0	The first 1/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...<br /><br />And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.<br /><br />This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.
0	I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.<br /><br />There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was "glacier," "ice floe," "two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota."<br /><br />The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny.
0	this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.<br /><br />evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.
0	I'M BOUT IT(1997)<br /><br />Developed & published by No Limit Films<br /><br />>>Pros: Absolutely none<br /><br />>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!<br /><br />Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.<br /><br />Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.<br /><br />My rating:1 out of 10<br /><br />My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.
0	When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting – be it swordplay or fisticuffs – and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.<br /><br />"Sword in the Moon" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.<br /><br />Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.<br /><br />Sadly, "Sword" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.<br /><br />I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'
0	An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.
0	The success of the original French "Emmanuelle" series (I've only watched the first, which wasn't too bad considering) led to a spate of imitations; the Italian counterpart, which even changed the race of its heroine, was clearly less polished and more exploitative - descending more and more into vulgarity as the series went along. Incredibly, there were 16 "Black Emanuelle" films in total, with the heroine even having the spelling of her name changed to avoid copyright issues!! Still, Laura Gemser - the titular object of desire - became almost as much of an icon as the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel (although, personally, she's too skinny for my tastes)! Here she's even billed as "Emanuelle" rather than with her real name - with the director, likewise, becoming "Albert Thomas"! <br /><br />In itself, the film offers little of interest: as a matter of fact, one would do best to approach it as a travelogue with some decent footage of the African wildlife. With respect to the sex scenes, I don't know how complete the version I watched was but, while there was a lot of nudity, none of it was very explicit - or even titillating (the scene that came closest, perhaps, was when Gemser - who works as a photographer - and her companion Karin Schubert turn the camera on each other, naturally sans clothes, in the middle of the jungle)! The film also features an artist made up to look like Salvador Dali but, mercifully perhaps, his scenes do not take much of the running time. The score by Nico Fidenco is typically bland 70s pop and, really, nothing to write home about.
0	Her bit-part as a masseuse, in the lurid sequel to the original 'Emmannuelle', evidently gave someone the bright idea of putting a spanner in the works of the French soft-core series' gambit by inverting the Caucasian carnality and casting Javan stunner Gemser in a leading role in this, the rather tame first of a series of sexploiters that became increasingly depraved as sleazier directors took on in-name-only sequels.<br /><br />Someone (and surely not the English-language over-haulers Warner?) was also anticipating an 'A Star Is Born' type meteoric rise out the results, judging by the way the actress is credited merely with the eponymous moniker of the on-screen heroine, albeit with a couple of consonants sacrificed as insurance against litigation.<br /><br />Gemser's tenure in the series saw her as an 'intrepid' photographer, allowing of course for all manner of subsequent globe-trotting adventures. But, whilst she may well have been one the very most beautiful actresses on the screen at that time, any thespian talent that may have been there to discern becomes mired in the same sort of unfeasibly facile cogitation ("I have to confess that since I've been in Africa, I find white skin less appealing...") that was to be found in the French films.<br /><br />And in this particular entry, much to the consternation of the raincoat brigade the essence of on-screen carnality is as much to be found in puerile symbolism (pumping engine pistons!) as it is in prosaic couplings - although naturally these include generous dollops of 'exploratory' lesbianism. Connoiseurs of kitsch are however guaranteed a continuous stream of aural delights, what with such epithets of ethnographic wisdom as "I do nothing to be a perfect black, she does everything to be a perfect white".
0	This movie is over hyped!! I am sad to say that I manage to watch the first 15 minutes of this movie and anything beyond that, I will have to force myself real hard to sit down and watch the rest of the movie. It's totally stupid and very fake. The robot in the movie looks like a man wearing those steel suit and the acting is really bad especially the one playing the character Alien.He is totally annoying!! Don't waste your money watching this sequel to the popular Gen-X Cops. I'd rather sleep or spend my money on some other things rather than watching this movie. 1 out of 10. If possible,I'd give 0.
0	I saw this movie on VHS some time ago (27 Jan 2003), just because of the name of Paul Rudd on the cover. I liked his performance in `The Object of My Affection' very much and I really expected a good work. However, I found this film a complete mess. The story has a very confused screenplay and the characters are not well developed. Further, the low-budget special effects do not help much. I do not know the previous generation of Gen-Y Cops, but this next generation is not good. I do not recall exactly why I gave this grade (and I do not intent to see this movie again), but my vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil) : `Gen-Y Cops A Nova Geração' (`Gen-Y Cops The Next Generation')
0	I somehow managed to make it all the way through this movie, but was dumbfounded by the complete lack of entertainment delivered. My friends and I are fans of HK film, but WOW. This movie has it all, and by all I mean everything a movie shouldn't have. Underdeveloped and stereotyped characters, way over-the-top overacting, cheesy special effects, talking robots, no less than 20 double-foot jumpkicks, impossible situations, unfunny "gags" and "jokes", elementary school premise, mindless killings, and too-long running time for the material. Throw in the fact that Gen-X Cops was a decent film and this movie becomes even harder to bear. Quite simply, if you're entertaining the idea of watching this film...don't.
0	This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.
0	Exceptionally silly actioner with braindead leads in a story which would have suited a fill-in issue of Spiderman. The action sequences never really flow as they should, leaving some cool bits orphaned in a sea of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I really wonder how they'll release this one in the West. Sam Lee overacts like crazy, newcomer Edison Chan doesn't display any acting talent yet. The robot is clunky and not very impressive, and the CGI effects (though done by US sfx-people) are ridiculous, totally destroying any remaining suspension of disbelief. I am NOT looking forward to Gen-Z Cops...
0	I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.<br /><br />The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.<br /><br />Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at. <br /><br />In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it.
0	i came across this film on the net by fluke and i was horrified by its content of vivid abuse violence and torture scenes. it was a relief to know it was not real after reading the comments. what dangerously sick animals of a person make something like this and for what purpose goes beyond belief. i was even more shocked to see people appraising the film in the comments section of this site. this is a extremely disturbing film indeed which could change your life forever. the people behind this should be bought to justice asap. today they shown a girl getting raped and butchered on screen tomorrow it could be a child. even its fake or not its very very deathly disturbing,nauseating indeed.
0	just watched this "film" and it actually made me want to write my first comment on IMDb.com, even though i've been a user for more than 9 years. the reason that i watched this, is because i like splatter films and sometimes i like to test my limits and see what actually still shocks me. first of all, the gore in this film didn't shock me, not even the idea that someone came up with this and made it into a film - what really shocked me, is that there seems to be a market for this kind of crap. don't get me wrong - i'm all against censorship, but this film seems to me like it was made for some kind of fetish crowd that seems to get off on this type of sh*t.it didn't give you that same kind of disgust and guilt that one felt after watching films like "august underground". that film is terrible to watch, but at least you get the feeling that the filmmakers want to show you how disgusting violence is. in the case of "niku daruma", it seems like it was made strictly to arouse people. i prefer films that shock, because they are well done and thought through, like Gaspar Noe's films, or Takashi Miike's, or Funny Games or Man Bites Dog - those films will stick with you for a while. this film i will have forgotten by tomorrow, and the only thing that will stick with me, is the thought, that somewhere out there, there are people getting aroused by watching this sh*t. if you read this, please check yourself into the next hospital or shoot yourself - this of course does not apply to gore hounds, who just love splatter. you're cool! peace
0	Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.
0	Not near as well made as the "Guinea Pig" flicks it was inspired by ("Flowers of Flesh and Blood" or "Devil's Experiment") and not conveying any real philosophy, this video feature, which is barely feature length, adds hardcore sex (with mosaic censoring) to its inspiration. The special make-up effects, which include stomach slitting and disembowelment, are pretty good, if overlit. The amateur feel of the production is a distraction. It all looks cheap and lazy. The lighting is harsh and the sound and editing are sloppy. The simple story involves a porno actress who ends up starring in a real snuff movie. Just when she gets tired of being abused, the real abuse begins. In the film's hero scene, an actor cuts the woman's stomach open in graphic close-up, stuffs his member inside it, and proceeds to do his thing. I didn't find "Psycho - The Snuff Reels" shocking. On the contrary, I found it to be a desperate attempt by amateurs to one-up "Guinea Pig" and its bloody ilk. Interestingly, this was distributed by Aroma, a leading fetish producer.
0	This movie just didn't do it for me. I like horror and splatter movies but this one has very little to do with horror. The effects are cheap and when they chop of one of her feet it looks so fake. The same goes for the other effects like the tongue torture and the gut sex. They could have spent of few extra bucks on the effects.<br /><br />With lots of sex (with pixelization as in all Japanese movies) this is just a sick fetish porn and there seems to be a market for sick stuff like this. While bloodier, for me it fits in with titles like Squirmfest / Purge and the Genki series. These movies feature girls eating and playing with every fluid that comes out of your body, eating bugs and fish in a gross way and having sex with all kinds of weird animals, like toads, eels and... One look at the covers will tell horror fans to look elsewhere. No horror here,just sick and degrading sex scenes.<br /><br />Horror fans should avoid this one and are better of checking out Guinea Pig2: Flowers of Flesh and Blood or even August Underground Mordum. While these are not great they at least offer a horror experience and Niku Daruma absolutely fails in that department.
0	Frankie Muniz plays Jason who is a high school student. His biggest problem is his life is built on small or big lies that puts him into trouble most times. However, he cannot escape from his teacher and he finishes his creative writing homework just before its deadline. While he is biking fast to hand his homework to the teacher, he crushes into a car. As he explains the situation to grumpy man(Giamatti) in the car, he gives him a lift to his school. But the problem is Jason leaves his homework in the car, the other way of saying this is Marty Wolf(Giamatti) steals it.<br /><br />After a few months Jason goes to a movie and sees a trailer that takes him aback. Because the story of the movie is based on his homework. He tells that to his parents but of course they don't believe him. Especially his father uses words which insults him. Jason decides to go to LA and find Wolf to tell his father that Jason is not a liar. When Wolf refuses it, Jason takes action and ruins his life.<br /><br />This is the short story of the Big Fat Liar. Well, as a kids movie it might be a light hearted one but there are some errors that even could would ask if that is possible. Such as, having such a small amount of money and going to LA with a friend to sort the problem out, having access to this cinema producer's highly protected house and office, setting up a telecommunications system overnight.Does it seem believable? It does not. Well this is a kids movie but kids are not that gullible.<br /><br />Big Fat Liar offers some little pleasure to its target audience. Unfortunately, I am not a big fat liar to say that this is a good movie. ** out of *****
0	I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story "Big Fat Liar" in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the "Big Fat Liar" paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!
0	Shakespeare would have been outraged. The writers mutilated Shakespeare's amazing work. Ariel is the only believable acting performance. The African voodoo, secluded swamp, and "Gator Man" character make the movie a mockery of Shakespeare's true Tempest. <br /><br />Don't waste your eye-sight on this movie.
0	I keep waiting for Peter Fonda to start acting. For someone who comes from such a talented family, it's a mystery to me why Peter Fonda can only play Peter Fonda trying to play someone else. And, that's the good news in this disappointing dog of an adaptation of The Tempest. A string of loosely connected ideas that only suggest a relationship with the Bard's great play is what we're served. The setting is the Civil War and Prospero's (here Guideon's) evil brother looks like an 1890's melodrama villain, complete with Snidely Whiplash moustache. I kept waiting for him to go "Uh ha hah!" which would have been a high point in this dreary presentation. None of the supporting cast was memoriable and Peter Fonda's lack of expression and wooden body movements made the lackadaisical story drag on and on. <br /><br />The Tempest is the Bard's statement about the rage of man's unjust treatment of man. The only believable character was the Gator man, the Caliban counterpart. The transferrence to the swamp had possibilities but the Civil War setting just didn't make it. All in all, a very disappointing production. I saw it on video and would advise, if you want a Willy Shakespeare fix, save your money on this one. Rent something else, like Branagh's Much Ado about Nothing, or Kevin Kline in Midsummer's Night Dream.
0	Jack Bender's "The Tempest" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.<br /><br />Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called "Gator-Man", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.<br /><br />Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.<br /><br />-------------End of Part 1----------------------------
0	The (DVD)movie "The Tempest", directed by Jack Bender, was published in 2001. It didn't make its way to German cinemas and neither the director or an actor were able to receive an important award for this movie. The movie refers to the Shakespearean play "The Tempest" which was published at the end of the 16th century. The director tried to create an modern version of this play, but failed. At the beginning of the movie the plantation owner Prosper gets in a conflict with his brother Antonio about the treatment of their slaves. Antonio sets his brother a trip and tries to kill him but with the help of a witch, Prosper is able to escape and flees with his daughter and a slave called Ariel to a small island nearby the Mississippi river. For over twelve years he has lived isolated on this island, till a lucky chance enables him to take revenge on his brother....If Prosper will be lucky you have to find out by yourself.<br /><br />In my opinion this film is really a bad try to create a modern version of the original play by William Shakespeare. The story of the movie is confusing as well as the characters. Prosper doesn't have the same powers as in the tempest..... END OF PART I
0	I tried to watch this adaptation, but it was just so awful I couldn't torture myself like that. The performances were quite sub-par, with the exception of Ariel. Fonda was way over the top in a role that should be handled with some subtlety. I have studied Shakespeare and seen many adaptations, and this is, by far, the worst one I have ever seen. I have to wonder why on Earth someone made this film. Shakespeare can, and has been, beautifully adapted in many cases. This is not one of them. If you must watch this film, may I suggest a drinking game? Take a drink every time they go off book from the original idea and two drinks every time Fonda overacts. You should be quite drunk in a very short time.
0	This film fails on every count. For a start it is pretentious, striving to be "significant" and failing miserably. The script was banal in the extreme, nobody at any time said anything remotely interesting. It was impossible to care about any of the characters. Knightly was a self-regarding waste of time whilst Sienna Miller was just a waste of time. The bit about the soldier who went off to war was a cliché even before the film Atonement used it. The use of the Second World War as a backdrop was in itself a cliché...the bombs, the sheltering in tube stations etc...employed to import a bit of much-needed drama. Why anybody thought for a moment that this film was worth making is quite beyond my comprehension. It was yet another case of "let's get the costumes looking authentic, never mind about the story, the script or the acting!"
0	Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
0	My god...i have not seen such an awful movie in a long...long time...saw it last night and wanted to leave after 20 minutes...keira knightley tries really really hard in this one, but she cant handle it..dropped her accent every once in a while and didn't have the charisma to fill the role...sienna millers acting gets you to a point where you start to ask yourself: Has she ever had acting lessons? judging by the edge of love shes never been to acting class, but should consider to go in the near future...they both look really pretty..maybe thats what they should focus on in their future career..if they can be actresses everybody can!
0	This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.<br /><br />A lot of effort has been put to make "The Edge of Love"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.<br /><br />Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.<br /><br />As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.<br /><br />I strongly advise avoiding "The Edge of Love", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.
0	I just got done watching The Edge of Love (by the way, this is one of the worst titles so far this year) and it felt like a chore. Watching Keira Knightly's unlikable, skeleton-looking character made me cringe even more throughout the coarse of the film.<br /><br />It took me four nights to watch this it was so boring. The only good thing about it was Cillian Murphy. He's always good/believable and is severely under looked in many films. This, however, was just not good enough for him.<br /><br />Apart from the unlikable characters, boring storyline, the plot was also emotionally unsatisfying. I felt like I spent my time watching this for nothing (which I did). I should have done the smart thing and turned it off, but I kept it on out of respect for Cillian Murphy and the great cinematography.
0	i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...<br /><br />this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.<br /><br />bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...<br /><br />this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.
0	This movie is so dull I spent half of it on IMDb while it was open in another tab on Netflix trying to find out if anyone thought it was one of the more boring, ponderous, gimmicky films they've ever seen. A warning: I actually could not finish it, so these are my impressions up to minute 54.<br /><br />Keira Knightly gets loads of screen time. As others have mentioned, her mother penned the script (perhaps during some sort of drug-induced stupor wherein utter inanities and emotionless statements about emotions sounded like interesting dialogue) and it seems that the film is a showcase for Knightly. Oops! Although I agree she is lovely (with her teeth unexposed...her barred teeth cause me anxiety and fear) I found her reactions forced and poorly timed. As in, William or Dylan does something cute...pause...HAHAHA from K with dimples and a playful arm jab. Like a minute too late. What? And she cannot match Cillian Murphy's intensity. He somehow manages to really look at her and look as though he is fascinated by her and falling in love with her whereas she seems totally disconnected, almost like she is interacting with a mirror. That must be torture, acting opposite someone who isn't delivering the same level of energy as you. Know what else is torture? This movie.<br /><br />Knightly does look stunning during her cyclical "I've got 1940s pin curls and a hot dress. Watch me sing!" shots, but what's the point? Is she an altar or an actress? When she talks it's bizarre, "Ooow, Mehster Deelan. Whur eer ya going?" This makes me confused because the accent is so mixed up and unauthentic, yet so thick at times I have no idea what she's saying (or maybe fell asleep). If no one knows who Vera was or cares, or few do, was it so important to give her this supposed Welsh accent? It distracts from all the rest of the action (just kidding there).<br /><br />This movie seems like someone dreamed a movie, maybe after reading a little Dylan Thomas before bed. But instead of adapting to the waking world was like, "Man, that dream was so interesting" and tried to replicate it. Then someone else cautioned, "Your script needs work. Nothing that happens furthers a story or creates necessity" and the writer is all, "But that's the way I dreamed it!" It's like the rambling fantasy of a child, one of those wild and meandering yarns they spin to get your attention. And THEN William went to a war and then Vera had a baby and then some blond chick drank too much and there were so many airplanes and pin curls and everyone had ruby red lips and...<br /><br />As for the Dylan Thomas character (so bland that's all I can call him), why didn't he have any lines in this goofy biopic? All he does is drink beer and smoke cigarettes and roll around with Sienna Miller, who is so wild and artistic she'll do a cartwheel in public! Get outta here, you crazy poets! (I realize she is not a poet, but she and Thomas are like this one nauseating unit of crazy guys havin crazy times, like a lukewarm Sailor and Lula from Wild at Heart.) Someone asks in the message board if they should buy this film. I say do it. Leave it on your shelf and only utilize it as a weapon to narcotize children, the elderly, or lingering house guests.<br /><br />P.S. to Murphy's character...when someone asks if you were "in the sh**" you can say yes, because your war scenes appear to have been shot at a landfill.
0	After I saw this I concluded that it was most likely a chick flick; afterward I found out that Keira's mother wrote the screenplay so that pretty much confirmed it. However, a chick flick can have some appeal to men; this one does not and really seems not to appeal that well either to women (looking at the dismal box office receipts). One item that I believe both genders agree upon is the stupidity of the the scene, in the movie, whereby an analogy is made between the pain of childbirth to the pain of a limb being amputated w/o anesthesia. Though men do not undergo the pain of childbirth we understand that it is a painful process; yet it is a natural pain whereas an amputation certainly is not! Women understand this even better. I suspect some woman was trying to make a feminist statement that is in poor taste. In fact, a lot of things in this movie are in very poor taste. Though movies nowadays are known for having poor taste this one really "excels" in that department. This could have been a good movie that shows the struggles of Dylan Thomas during WWII; and how strong the sentiment was against men who somehow managed to avoid serving in the military then. Keira's screen writing mother tries to show how this sentiment was used against Dylan but really muddles this. Instead we get a chick flick about how two young mothers bond together; sort of. In a way. Perhaps. Somehow. Of note is the fact that a soldier (the husband of the friend of Dylan's wife) is sent back home after serving in combat; yet it is unclear if the war has ended!! A lot of things about this movie are similarly unclear; and though I have stated that already I will do so again as it seems to be the central motif of this mess.
0	An odd, willfully skewed biopic of Dyan Thomas in which we hear little more than a dozen lines of his poetry. Instead we have to endure a raw character exposée seen through the prism of his proto-bigamous relationship with wife (Sienna Miller) and childhood love (Keira Knightley). Matthew Rhys plays Thomas with sufficient charm to inoculate us against his otherwise repellent self-interest and Cillian Murphy makes up the persistently tense lovetet.<br /><br />The film never seems to decide on where it's going. There's no arc so much as a viaduct from one end of the war to the other. Maybury seems much more interested in his two female leads (who wouldn't!?) than in the man who brings them together and then divides them. Miller is the choice of the two (I found Knightley competent at best but then I have never found her sympathetic) but they both offer dreadfully inconsistent Welsh accents. Other funny decisions include too much for the inconsequential character of William (Murphy), arty production (eg double crossfades) that is neither impressionist nor symbolic and the old chestnut act of period footage which doesn't blend. 4/10
0	This movie is actually so poor in its desperate attempts at being "feel good" and casual it really made me embarrassed watching it. I can't imagine how the inner circle of Norwegian celebs and press must have felt trying to pretend to like it at the star-packed premiere. Its great media reviews is a sickening example of how ridiculously small and inbred the Norwegian media scene is. Had a foreign film of this quality reached the silver screen it would have gotten the rain of rotten tomatoes it truly deserves.<br /><br />The combination of literally amateur actors, home-made style visual effects, awkward dialogue, painfully idle attempts at working class humour and the overly cozy and meaningless plot, really makes this a movie of rock bottom quality. Stay away.
0	This is one of the most awful movies I've ever seen, probably only surpassed by the dreadful and utterly meaningless Blueberry. How can Harald Zwart even have put his name on this crap. I'm feeling every ounce of respect I had for him waning fast.<br /><br />So what is it about this film that makes it so poor? Is it the story? Yes. Is it the actors? Yes. It it the whole "look and feel" of the movie? Yes.<br /><br />To start off with the story, my god!It's about as cliché-ridden and predictable as what you would expect from a drunk 14-year old who is late writing his/her paper on "What I did this summer". The feel-good vibe the makers try to achieve just completely drown as we suffer through yet another embarrassing turn to the story.<br /><br />The actors are amateurs, I know, and thus we cannot expect them to be of the same quality as professional actors. But for this to work, the characters HAVE to be charming and/or funny (preferably both), so that the viewers don't mind the cheeky acting, or perhaps it even adds to the characters. In this case, not even close baby! You start off disliking the characters mildly, and by the end of the film (I think it's about 90 minutes long, although it feels like 4 hours) you have a strong desire to hurt somebody to get your mind of these annoying stupid guys! It should be impossible to find this movie's attempt at humor successful unless you're actually yourself like these stupid hickeys. Their before mentioned lack of talent and credibility as far as acting goes, only makes the foolish and overly simple scenes fall harder to the ground. Even the family of the people involved will have a hard time finding this anything but very, very embarrassing (I'd rather have my sister make a fool of herself on American Idol).<br /><br />Finally, why cram in a bunch of misplaced Norwegian celebrities? They look even more out of place than the actors, if this is possible. These celebrity cameos just add to the cheap feeling of the film and is in itself a pretty see-through shot in the dark at trying to improve something broken even before inception.<br /><br />I cannot even begin to stress how much I'd rather watch paint dry than ever watch this movie again...
0	I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.<br /><br />Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.<br /><br />I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.<br /><br />The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.<br /><br />Maybe I just didn't get it.<br /><br />I'll leave it at that.
0	For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.<br /><br />With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.<br /><br />I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.<br /><br />If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.
0	There were so many classic movies that were made where the leading people were out-and- out liars and yet they are made to look good. I never bought into that stuff. The "screwball comedies" were full of that stuff and so were a lot of the Fred Astaire films.<br /><br />Here, Barbara Stanwyck plays a famous "country" magazine writer who has been lying to the public for years, and feels she has to keep lying to keep her persona (and her job). She even lies to a guy about getting married, another topic that was always trivialized in classic films.<br /><br />She's a New York City woman who pretends she's a great cook and someone who knows how to handle babies, etc. Obviously she knows nothing and the lies pile up so fast you lose track. I guess all of that is supposed to be funny because lessons are learned in the end and true love prevails, etc. etc. Please pass the barf bag.<br /><br />Most of this film is NOT funny. Stanwyck was far better in the film noir genre. As for Dennis Morgan, well, pass the bag again.
0	Oh God! It could be a very interesting film and in fact it is. I would have like to give it a 5 but i give a 2 for my vote. Why? I saw it in a theatre! See this film on DVD or on TV! The shooting is really really POOR!!!!! It keeps shaking all the time, in a completely tasteless framing!<br /><br />Its really painful to see this very interesting film in a cinema. You got quickly seasick and you have to make some huge effort not to puke on your neighbor 's seat! <br /><br />It's really a shame 'cos, the story is edited in a non-linear way which is quite rare (and a very good idea!) for a documentary. <br /><br />Watch this at home!
0	As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.<br /><br />Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however. <br /><br />Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.<br /><br />To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.<br /><br />I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.
0	Was it really necessary to include embarrassing footage of non-participants in a documentary. And why all the silly dog scenes, and then repetition of all the same silly dog scenes? This film starts with a great promise - to expose the international politics and the business of wine. It got off to a great start and included all the right characters. But the production is a mess. Points started and developed most of the way, then never finished or left with dangling ends. Very poor and disorienting camera work and editing. They should have used subtitles for the British mumbler from Christie's.<br /><br />Too much fluff and not enough fact for a documentary.<br /><br />Probably honored at Cannes because of the US bashing (although in my opinion there was too little of it).<br /><br />We left at the 2:00 hour mark - I have no idea how much longer it ran on.
0	I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.<br /><br />These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.<br /><br />Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.<br /><br />I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.
0	i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.<br /><br />I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...<br /><br />hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..
0	The filmmakers try to paint the influence of the Mondovis and Robert Parker as a travesty on par with the German occupation of France and the reign of Fascism. But they never find a victim in this film. We hear wine makers, critics and distributors bemoan that while the wine industry grows it becomes increasingly homogeneous. But the film never makes a case that this has resulted in the loss of any good wine or exploitation of any person or culture other than naive Wine Spectator readers with lots of cash. If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dull wine, so be it.<br /><br />If this were a film about the diamond trade, where the DeBeers corporation's market domination results in human suffering, the muckraking style might have been appropriate. But as it is it just comes off as anti-American, anti-modernization and anti-capitalist. Had the filmmakers been around in the 1870s they most likely would have protested the grafting of American vines in the effort to save French wine.
0	The film is annoying.<br /><br />Technically, there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. One could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. Down to earth, man on the street doesn't mean sloppy editing. Unfocused scenes that don't contain important statement should have been deleted. The same goes for making sure that the object's head/hand/others stay in the frame. My 8 years old son knows that by now.<br /><br />The film is way too long. The main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes, why bother with all the rest. After the interview with James Suckling I pressed the "stop" button. What a waist of time.<br /><br />The main theme just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre, commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. The movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more Identity, or terroir. The bigger ones are accused of producing "internationalized" or "commercialized" wines. The film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. However, the movie hasn't proved this claim. They look at a couple of sporadic examples, "tie" some of the big producers (Frescobaldi) with fascism and provided "interviews" with key people. Well, did all the small producers spent WWII in the resistance? Is it relevant to see that Parker has a thing with Bulldogs? The movie is very manipulative and unconvincing.
0	i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2/10)
0	Did Beavis and Butthead make this movie? It is just that bad. Truly an uneven and unfair portrayal of "bad" vs. "good" in the wine world. Did you notice the filmmaker trying any of the wines from the featured protectors of individual wines and terroir. The camera work is dizzying at best while the content may put you to sleep before long. This is not insightful journalism. What I got from this movie was that the filmmaker was trying hard to make a point about the globalism of wine by showing, for example, that the Mondavi family owned wineries in all parts of the world. Okay, that is a good start. So, how do these wines compare? Does the Mondavi Napa cab taste like their Italian wines. We never find out because no one in the film comments on this. Instead, there is a lot of innuendo about Nazi's and fascism. Well, those things don't grow grapes. Hmmmm.
0	Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his "Lady Vengeance" and "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.<br /><br />Others have compared/contrasted this to "Let the Right One In," and I have to say that "Let the Right One In" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.
0	This film appears to be an exposé of the current trend towards globalization and homogenization in the wine industry. Wineries around the world are more and more either joining large conglomerates (the American producer, Mondavi, in the case of this film) or paying high-priced experts to help them make "the perfect wine"--and as a result, wines are becoming very standard and predictable. To some, this is a good thing (especially since few can afford to pay $50 or more for an everyday wine) and to others this is horrible as the uniqueness of smaller wineries is disappearing. I truly can understand the concerns of both sides and don't think there is a villain or hero in this business. Sure, good and cheaper wine is a nice thing, but like what's happened with beers (with giants like Unibrew and Anheiser-Busch), food (McDonalds), shopping (European shopping malls are almost indistinguishable from American ones) and mega-stores (like Walmart/Asda) are taking away much of the uniqueness of "the little guys". So I definitely was ready and willing to listen to these film makers. However, with a product that is almost two and a half hours long AND a general lack of focus, the film simply became too big a chore to watch and I lost interest. An 80-90 minute focused film would have been MUCH more effective--especially since the average viewer is NOT an oenophile (that's the high-brow word for a "wine aficionado").<br /><br />On the very positive side, the film makers are smart not to do much talking at all--and simply let those on both sides of the issue do the talking. Plus, the topic is so relevant and timely. However, despite choosing a good style of documentary making, the film simply goes on way, way, way too long and ended up making a very dull film.
0	An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer.
0	Honest young insurance agent Ronald Reagan (as Eric Gregg) is optimistic, but poor. His wife, scheming Sheila Bromley (as Nona Gregg), longs for the finer things in life. Describing herself as "not weighted down with tons of righteousness," Ms. Bromley begins to spend more money than Mr. Reagan earns. Bromley obtains the finer things in life, but puts the couple in debt. Bromley is a fun shrew.<br /><br />Handsome Reagan attracts other women, like perky clerk Gloria Blondell (as Patricia Carmody); but, he doesn't indulge. To pay the bills, Bromley gets tangled up in the insurance fraud racket - which helps get her husband fired. An unemployed Reagan seems to be tempted into a life of crime - will he remain straight up, or get crooked? Clinton Rosemond has an uncomfortable "broken arm" scene.<br /><br />*** Accidents Will Happen (1938) William Clemens ~ Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley, Gloria Blondell
0	He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.<br /><br />Yes, this is from Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 from "Beyond Good and Evil". And that's what you find at the start of this movie.<br /><br />If you watch the whole movie, you will doubt if it was the message that the Ram Gopal Varma Production wanted to pass on. As the scenes crop up one by one, quite violent and at times puke-raking, the viewer is expected to forget the Nietzsche quote and think otherwise. That to deal with few people you need dedicated people like Sadhu Agashe who will have the licence to kill anyone, not just writing FIRs (something unworthy of the police to do, as we are made to believe).<br /><br />When TADA was repealed and the government wanted to pass newer and even more draconian laws, RGV's "Satya" did the required brain surgery without blood transfusion for the multiplex growing thinking urban crowd whose views matters in a democratic country like India. Within a year MCOCA was passed.<br /><br />When real life encounter specialist Daya Nayak 'became a monster on the path of fighting them' and was himself booked by MCOCA, "Aab tak Chhappan" was made to heed out "false" impression among the people about this. With it's "you have to be a monster to save your nation" approach.<br /><br />And people consumed it. No questions raised. Only praises and hopes that they get a Sadhu Agashe in their local police station who will solve all problems and hence let only milk and butter flow all over. Blood? You can ignore.<br /><br />Every time Israel attacks Palestine or Lebanon, we hear voices like "India must also similarly attack Pakistan". This movie is made for such psychopaths. If you don't give them this, they will probably die out of boredom and LSD and what not.<br /><br />Hence this game of the passion of hatred.
0	This movie is not at all like City of God, you might get the same feeling but it isn't, there's no intense shooting nor intense drug scenes, you get the idea. If you ask me I think this film was a waste of time, there are a lot of other films which gives 100 times better meaning and teaching than "Wooden Camera". Yes I might be the only one to give a negative comment for this film but it's only in my opinion. It's one of those films where I can get the feeling that I'll be blown away but when the credits start to role my friends and I all gave mutual looks, and we all laughed at how ridiculous this movie was. So to conclude this matter, I advise not to watch it.<br /><br />Personal note - Making Africans talk English was a big mistake. In City of God they used their native language which gave the film much more power and reality.
0	Don't get me wrong. I really love the "arena-martial arts genre", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already).
0	I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've ever seen !.
0	and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?
0	Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues ("you are a woman . . . I am a man!") he has to babble nonsense about "the will of Allah" and "the wind blows destiny across the desert sands." John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.<br /><br />The only "real" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, "we must escape." The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, "but mother, I was sleeping!" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.<br /><br />Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.
0	In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****
0	Bloody Birthday opens to a shot of Meadowvale General Hospital. There three babies are being born at precisely the same time during a total eclipse. A caption informs us that it is now 'Meadowvale, California June 1, 1980'. Two teenage lovers, Duke Benson (Ben Marley) and Annie Smith (Erica Hope) are getting down to business in an open grave. They hear noises and Duke investigates. Both Duke and Annie are murdered. Sheriff Jim Brody (Bert Kramer) is baffled and only has the handle of a child's skipping rope that Annie was holding, as a clue. Unfortunately before Sheriff Brody can solve the case his youngest daughter Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy) and two of her friends Curtis Taylor (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) and Steven Seton (Andy Freeman) murder him. Just as they are finishing Sheriff Brody off another young boy from their class named Timmy Russel (K.C. Martel) turns up, the three killers are unaware of how much he saw. Soon after the incident Timmy plays with Steven and Curtis in a junkyard. Curtis locks Timmy into an old locker. Timmy manages to escape and tell his sister Joyce (Lori Lethin), but she doesn't believe him at first. The three children carry on their murder spree. Their strict teacher Miss Davis (Susan Strasberg) a lovemaking couple (John Avery and Sylvia Wright) in a van and Debbie's older sister Beverly (Julie Brown) are among their victims. Joyce begins to have her suspicions about Debbie, Curtis and Steven which makes her and Timmy a target for the evil trio. Will they be able to convince the authorities that these three innocent looking 10 year olds are really soulless killers?<br /><br />Co-written and directed by Ed Hunt I have an intense dislike for this film. I think it's absolutely awful and doesn't have a single enjoyable aspect to it's 83 minute running time. The script by Hunt and Barry Pearson gives us no explanation for the child killers motives beyond the solar eclipse that blocks out Saturn and therefore for some bizarre astrological reason these three children don't have any conscience, so these are the only children ever born during a total eclipse? If that is true why do they wait until just before their tenth birthday's before starting their killing spree? I guess it just suddenly kicks in, right? To it's credit it is reasonably well paced but I still found it incredibly boring and tedious to sit through. The film as a whole is very unexciting and predictable, the children are revealed as the killers within the first 10 minutes and as I've mentioned next to no motive is given. It's very silly at times, too. Check out the scene where Debbie stops Steven by throwing a bowl of water over him! The Sheriff's death is put down to him falling down some steps, yeah right the injuries suffered from that type of accident aren't going to be the same as if your beaten to death with a baseball bat like he was in reality, any competent Doctor or Pathologist would have spotted that within 5 seconds. There isn't a single drop of blood spilt in the entire film and all of the lame killings are dull and unimaginative. There is some out-of-place looking nudity as Debbie charges 25c to let boys peek through a hole while her sister Beverly strips. There is an early scene just after the 5 minute mark when Joyce walks from the kitchen to the living room and the boom mike is clearly visible at the top of the screen, not even a little bit of it the whole damn thing. The general incompetence continues throughout the film. The whole production is bland and instantly forgettable. The acting is poor throughout, those three kids are very annoying and got on my nerves right from the start and made sitting through this film even more of a chore, especially Curtis in his geeky over-sized glasses. I just hate this film really, simple as that. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Definitely one to avoid.
0	Let's not fool ourselves, okay? We all know that this film was made because of the success of the "Grumpy Old Men" movies. Unlike those, however, this travesty has zero humor and very little heart.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven is the sole shining light to be seen. It breaks my heart that she was finally given the chance to show off her skills to a new generation of moviegoers, only to end up in a piece of dreck such as this. There was a touching scene which featured her being stood up by someone she was falling in love with. Her fine performance was the only quality acting going on in "Out To Sea". Everyone else is just going through the motions. 2/10
0	I never heard of this film when it first came out. It must have sunk immediately. :o) I saw it on cable while sick in hospital so I hardly had enough energy to watch it, let alone turn the channel. Better choice than the Style Channel. ;0(. Filmed on location, this travelogue should have been on the Travel Channel. The plot is recycled from ship board farces of the thirties and forties. The cast seems to have been recycled from the fifties. Donald O'Connor, star of musicals and Edward Mulhare as a card shark. As to the main cast, Walter Matthau is still playing the same part as he did in Guys and Dolls or was it the one about the orphan girl? Wiseacre irresponsible gambler and rounder. But it just doesn't take with a man of his age. As to Jack Lemmon, he plays his part so straight, he can hardly dip and glide when dancing. And as mentioned, Dyan Cannon is outstandingly attractive as another swindler sailing with her mother who thinks Walter is rich, while he thinks she is rich. Elaine Stritch plays Dyan's mother, another retread from the fifties. The most fun is the running feud between Brent Spiner as the domineering and snotty cruise director who immediately spots Walter as a poor dancer, and spends his time trying to get him dismissed so he will have to pay for his free passage. In the end, though he receives his comeuppances. Meanwhile Jack mopes about, meets an attractive woman, with mutual attraction, but their affair is broken up by Walter's lies that Jack is a doctor, when he was actually a retired department store buyer. But finally, the two men take to the sea in a rubber boat to intercept her seaplane and all is well. There does not seem to be any principal player under the age of fifty.
0	Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the "Legion of Decency." My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse "humor" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, "just too darn sensitive" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank.
0	hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.
0	This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.
0	I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.<br /><br />The songs aren't brilliant, though the "Sodomy" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.<br /><br />Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.<br /><br />Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.<br /><br />Worth a look for lovers of the genre.
0	I've liked Milos Forman's movies since I saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus" (two big masterpieces), but when I saw "Hair", I kept wondering if this was the same Milos Forman. This movie is boring and uninteresting to say the least. OK, the music is pretty good, but on screen it only seems like a bunch of drugged people dancing around (wait a minute... that's what it really is!). In fact, the only interesting part, and the only part where Milos' talent shows up, are the last 15 minutes or so, (SPOILER!!) since when Berger takes Claude's place as a soldier set to the Vietnam war. That 15 minutes are moving and well-directed, but it's a shame that we have to endure so much awful material before that.<br /><br />Well, maybe this is one of those movies you need to be "on the subject" to enjoy (the subject being marijuana, acid and other drugs the film glorifies). I'm not, so...
0	I was a hippie age 22 in 1965, have seen the play 5 times, have 2 versions of the music, and have read the script many times. Maybe taken as an separate thing, the movie is OK, but as an adoption of the play, it's terrible.<br /><br />First the good. The songs are sung well, and the production values are pretty good. The homosexual implications in Black Boys, White Boys is cute. The Claude/Berger switch was interesting. Hair is a fluid production, and constant changes in it are inherent provided the basic spirit of it is retained.<br /><br />But the basic spirit was very much distorted. It seemed like all the producer wanted was to sing certain songs, and fit the story-line to them regardless of what that did to the original intent of the play.<br /><br />Claude, Sheila, and Hud were presented as a selfish brats who could care less about anyone outside their tribe. Claude destroyed Sheila's parents party (it's hard to believe that she smiled while her parents were being hurt), and repeatedly stole cars. Sheila stole the soldier's clothes and car. Then she left him in the middle of the desert where he would certainly sunburn badly, probably be busted in rank, and could likely die on that lonely Nevada road. Good fun. And Hud found it fine to break his son's heart while yelling at his ex. This is not what hippies were like, not what the play described, and is directly opposite to a love generation.<br /><br />I've never seen a hippie beg for money. The point was to be self-sufficient outside the capitalist system, not beg from it.<br /><br />After Berger is thrown in jail for ruining Sheila's party and Claude offers to bail some out, Berger insists on being bailed instead, with no better plan for bailing the rest that hitting on Sheila's parents, and then hitting on his own mommy.<br /><br />"Be In" has always been a very spiritual point, but here it is wasted on silly brides floating around. Even if this is part of his trip, it ruins a beautiful song. I know they're contrasting "Floating In Space" with the Army. But again, it totally ruins a beautiful song.<br /><br />While Sheila and Claude are skinny dipping, Berger steals their clothes, laughing "it was fun man" even after he could see both were very annoyed. Then a little later, Berger does one thing that no hippie ever does. He hits Claude. Terrible.<br /><br />Then they have the perfect opportunity to sing "Starshine" at night in some beautiful SF spot with the stars twinkling down, maybe working into an inventive duet. Instead, the whole tribe sings it in the blazing sun speeding down the road in a convertible (stolen of course).<br /><br />I was vastly disappointed with the movie in 1979, and I like it even less now. I think it would have been possible to do a reasonably close adoption of the show, but this ain't it.
0	When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.<br /><br />There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.
0	Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.
0	This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.<br /><br />Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.<br /><br />Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.<br /><br />This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.
0	This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.
0	I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?
0	This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!
0	This looks so good on paper - Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishbourne, Jean Reno, nice right? And a heist with $42 million - sounds like a kick-ass crime movie.<br /><br />Big disappointment - I reckon the stars got all the money because the production values on this are lousy.<br /><br />But more than that it the pseudo reservoir Dogs atmosphere when the easy crime goes wrong. It's very much made for TV stuff.<br /><br />All in all hugely disappointing - it score points for being what it is - but loses them massively for being, bluntly, not very interesting at all...
0	Armored<br /><br />The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.<br /><br />And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.<br /><br />When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself – and the funds – inside the armored truck.<br /><br />A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.<br /><br />Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)
0	Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very cliché no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.<br /><br />If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie.
0	What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.<br /><br />Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:<br /><br />Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.<br /><br />There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.
0	A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!<br /><br />The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?<br /><br />Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.
0	The sounds in the movie were so mundane and ridiculous, seriously banging on the door hinges for about 30 minutes really crunches your teeth and makes your head hurt.<br /><br />i love bad puns more than the next guy, but come on "no blood on our hands" being said about a million times by Matt Dillon' character, and when Matt Dillon's character shoots the bum the lead character which i fail to remember his name because i don't really think anyone cares gets blood on his hands literally.<br /><br />the background music with the heavy metal guitar ringing an A-chord for about 5 minutes isn't my idea of music, come on i was having the worst headache by the end of this garbage.
0	The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.
0	Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the "reward" is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.
0	A mean spirited, repulsive horror film about 3 murderous children. Susan Strasberg is totally wasted in a 5-minute cameo, even though she receives star billing. If your a Julie Brown fan, you'll want to check it out, since she's naked in a couple of shots. All others,avoid.
0	One of those movies in which there are no big twists whatsoever and you can predict pretty much whats is going to happen. Matt dillon was awesome once again, but the rest didn't played a bigger part as they should have.<br /><br />It was exciting in the beginning but kinda slow paced and predictable in the end.Its one of those flicks in which the good guy wins no matter happens.If you have absolutely nothing to do, you can give it a try I personally found it not worth watching. The story could have been more interesting and the director could have made it less of a B-movie by engineering a happy ending.
0	After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a cliché film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because "hot head-bad guy" shots a bum, and of course "do goody-bad guy" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr "do goody" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it
0	Disappointing heist movie indeed, I was actually expecting a pretty cool cat and mouse stuff going on through out the movie and it does have few of those cat and mouse stuff going on, but it was just pretty stupid. And it basically showed all the good scenes in the trailer, as a matter of fact if you seen the trailer to this, you basically seen the whole film cause it is just that predictable. So basically the plot is about a few armored truck company workers that try to steal the 42 million dollars they are suppose to transport, until one of the members grows a conscience. I thought the movie would be better with it's cast of well known actors, but I was wrong. I mean this isn't necessarily a bad film but it just wasn't that good either or has any depth. This is most definitely a rental at best, just not really worth seeing it in theaters. heist <br /><br />4.8/10
0	OK I for one thought the trailer was quite good so was hopeful for this film, plus with the cast line up I was sure it couldn't get less than a 6 in my books. However I got annoyed half hour into the story... just where normal films get good, this film hit rock bottom. <br /><br />SPOILER * The guy who everyone is trying to help is so caring of other people getting hurt in the middle of the hustle that he turns on his colleagues to save a tramp and then locks himself inside one of the armoured trucks. Not only that, he constantly tries to get other peoples attention by which he ends up endangering more people and long story short, the outcome is that he is responsible for not just the tramps death, but also a police officer getting shot and the kidnapping of his younger brother... oh and all 5 of his colleagues dying disgraced deaths. <br /><br />But in the end he is HAPPY because he came to his senses halfway through the endeavour, so what if all his colleagues are now dead rather than sticking to the plan and being a millionaire. This film tried to be so politically correct it makes me sick! Ruined a good story. Shame really.
0	this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.<br /><br />i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now! <br /><br />I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is "how did Dillon choose this script"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort. <br /><br />i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.<br /><br />i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.<br /><br />Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.
0	A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.<br /><br />I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.<br /><br />Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.<br /><br />The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.<br /><br />The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient. <br /><br />Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks. <br /><br />Skip it.
0	How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and "B movie" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.
0	I have to admit that I am disappointed after seeing this movie. I had expected so much more from the trailers. The movie was absolutely horrible. It lacked a real story line and the acting was not exactly the best. Don't waste your time. The movie is not what the trailers lead you to think it is. I would have to say that I don't usually write anything about movies on IMDb (in fact this is my first one) but this movie was such a disappointment that I registered just to let people know not to waste their time or money. The story line is that of a heist that is to happen and it looks like it had potential to be good but the things that happen in the movie are a little far fetched to be believable. Watch another movie instead, maybe the inside man???
0	Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.<br /><br />There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.<br /><br />The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.<br /><br />In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time.
0	This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The cast was fantastic, but the movie itself was horrible. It was so awful, I had to register just to say how bad it was.<br /><br />I watched this movie, and I wanted to break it every minute I watched. It could have been great. Had a great premise. If you're going to rob an armored car, and there's a homeless person which sees you, you have to do, what you have to do. For the main character to decide to get a cop killed, and kill his friends and co-workers after the homeless guy was already dead, it's just ridiculous. And yes, I'm sure there will be responses to this about how his conscious got to him, but come on.<br /><br />The main character crawled out the bottom of the armored truck, no one saw him. He blew up the stash of money and grabbed and dragged the cop right behind the other guards and no one saw him. He was able to get back in the armored car, and no one saw him... This movie had potential, but blew it.<br /><br />You couldn't pay me to watch this movie ever again! DON'T EVER watch it! Aggravating...
0	Bloody Birthday is a totally rubbish slasher movie from beginning to end. <br /><br />I found the acting to be pretty good considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know. <br /><br />There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few deaths but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The best thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any worse than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.
0	There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.<br /><br />One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.<br /><br />Promising but not quite there.
0	I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.
0	I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a "Dog Day Afternoon"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the "hero" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, "no way". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.
0	At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.<br /><br />After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like "As a matter of fact I do," and "Are you crazy??" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.<br /><br />Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no "Ok, here's what we're gonna do..." scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.<br /><br />This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: "Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.<br /><br />When filmmakers don't have a cool "hook" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.<br /><br />Skip it. 3/10
0	I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie. <br /><br />It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either. <br /><br />What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal. <br /><br />This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.
0	After reading Fool For Love in a Drama class of mine, I was looking forward to seeing how Sam Shepard's wonderful play would be translated to the screen. Much to my dismay, it was nowhere near as entertaining as the play. The film seemed to drag, the music was inappropriate for the tone of the movie, and all the raw energy of the play seemed to have been sucked out of this film version. It's a shame to see this come out this way even with Shepard's involvement, playing the role of Eddie. Do yourselves a favor...see the play next time it's being performed in your area or simply read the book instead.
0	"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.<br /><br />Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.<br /><br />The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. <br /><br />The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.<br /><br />Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.<br /><br />Grade: C-
0	I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.
0	The first few minutes showing the cold and crusty the Willis character were pretty enjoyable, especially with Jean Smart, but it really tanked after that. This is just hackneyed big man and little irritating kid stuff from way back with no innovation at all. I know that the casting probably picked this kid to show that Willis was just as irritating in his younger self, but I found this kid ESPECIALLY irritating and whinney.
0	There are a few scripts like this one floating around Hollywood; this one is not even close to the best--just the first. This is all production value, no substance, but the Disney name probably will help it. A good idea, a wasted opportunity.
0	When you make a film with a killer-kids premise, there are two effective ways to approach it; you can either make it as realistic as possible, creating believable characters and situations, or you can make it as fun as possible by playing it for laughs (something which the makers of "Silent Night, Deadly Night" did, for example, on an equally controversial subject: a killer Santa). The people who made "Bloody Birthday", however, do neither of those things; they simply rely on the shock value of the image of a kid with a gun (or a knife, or a noose, or an arrow) in his/her hand. The result is both offensive and stupid. The whole film looks like a bad idea that was rushed through production (and then kept from release for several years). It's redeemed a tiny bit by good performances from the kids, but it's VERY sloppily made. (*1/2)
0	Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.<br /><br />[warning: may be considered a "spoiler"]<br /><br />While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run" I was really disappointed in Disney's "The Kid."<br /><br />Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor "Quantum Leap" episode and a bad time traveling flick.<br /><br />Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.<br /><br />Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that "the Kid" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.
0	After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!
0	I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.<br /><br />For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.<br /><br />All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).<br /><br />Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).<br /><br />I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!<br /><br />By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.
0	what was Bruce Willis thinking when he signed on for this one?? this one made no sense to me.. i was so confused by it, it wasnt funny at all.. I dont even know why Disney made this one.. Bruce is a Great actor whom ive liked for a Long time .. and this disappointed me a lot.. Pass this one by on the video shelf....
0	The Kid was born retarded. It pulls in a half-dozen directions, features dialog and action lifted from much older and better-known flops, and might be funny -- if only the writers knew what funny is.<br /><br />Disney stuff has gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades, but don't let that fool you. They should have given The Kid a wide berth, sang it a lullaby, then ran the train into a ravine. Mercy killing.
0	First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.
0	Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off "real cute" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.<br /><br />That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....<br /><br />The kid "Rusty" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as "Russell" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.<br /><br />Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including "The Cat In The Hat" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning. <br /><br />Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.
0	The Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy was one of the silliest and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the woman in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What I can't buy is that the incredibly phony looking mummy and the even worse looking robot. When you want to watch a film like this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute total! Probably worst of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the credits. It's the worst I've ever seen. Avoid this one if possible.
0	Awful, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.<br /><br />I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way? <br /><br />Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.
0	Oh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero! <br /><br />This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.<br /><br />Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment.
0	When people say children are annoying u think ya my little cousins can be annoying and i said LITTLE. These children are turning 10 and they are without a doubt the most annoying bratty children you will ever encounter (in a film). Lets start with the blonde - Debbie - She's a slut of a girl, i mean come on she wears mini skirts, she has stupid frizzy blonde hair and a freckley red bunny like face. She acts so innocent. Next we have the second child - the Geek - who thinks he's so cool, with his long range shooting and his use of a silencer (a coat over the gun) and most of all his evil bratty smile. The next kid is the quiet one you don't care about so thats all on him. This film angered me at the children's intelligence and the only enjoyment i got was from my cousin who kept bitching about them.
0	There must be an error. This movie belongs with "Plan 9", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.
0	Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.<br /><br />Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.<br /><br />I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....<br /><br />In conclusion: Don't waste your time.
0	With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, "Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink." What more can I say?
0	**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.<br /><br />In "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.<br /><br />After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as "The Bat". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 "Atomic Superman" classic "Bride of the Monster".<br /><br />Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the "Tin-Man" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.
0	Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.
0	The first 2/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.<br /><br />However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.<br /><br />You've got to see these "human-robots" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really look hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth sitting through the rest of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an artless and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not thrills.<br /><br />Overall, the film is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for bad movie fans, it's a must-see--it's bad but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.
0	2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.<br /><br />I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a "robot human" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called "Android vs. the Aztec Mummy", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says "I might as well begin at the beginning...." what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say "start at the beginning" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.<br /><br />I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.
0	Ah, such an original title for a very shoddy film. The dubbing is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and got the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir mess. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.
0	I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!
0	I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste. <br /><br />La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest. <br /><br />There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.
0	'Bloody Birthday' is an odd and, at times, humorous low-budget horror flick along the lines of 'Mikey' or a less intelligent version of 'The Good Son'.<br /><br />Set in a small Californian town, three babies are born at the height of an eclipse, where planetary alignment means they are somehow born without emotions. Ten years later, our three little psychopaths take themselves on a killing spree, doing away with parents, siblings, teachers and anyone else who irritates them. Only one teenage girl knows the truth to be able to stop them. There is no explanation for why babies across the world born at the same time aren't equally as twisted but there you go!<br /><br />For a slasher film, it's very tame in terms of violence and gore, which I suppose highlights the problem of casting child characters as the killers as there is only so much you can expose the young actors to. Instead, it's amusing and a little disturbing seeing three ten-year-olds plotting murders and carrying out their plans using guns, knives and crossbows. The main reason why it doesn't descend into being totally ridiculous is because the child actors are very convincing in their roles with the way they slyly play the little innocents in front of undiscerning adults while showing their dark side to the girl who knows the truth.<br /><br />'Bloody Birthday' is rather mediocre as a horror flick, with few scares and little blood, but because it has the shock factor of having kids as the killers, it is a bit unique in that way. One to watch if there's nothing else on.
0	Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:<br /><br />Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.<br /><br />Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.<br /><br />Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.<br /><br />Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.<br /><br />Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.
0	Formulaic slasher film, only this one stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene may make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
0	"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Grade: C-
0	Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****
0	Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.<br /><br />Whereas "Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is mediocrity incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.<br /><br />Gene Kelly has the least developed part in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.<br /><br />Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.<br /><br />The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain.
0	It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be "The Next Officer and a Gentleman." There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.<br /><br />We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG ("I want you DOR," the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual "wise teacher" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.<br /><br />The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go "so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say "oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie..." What's more baffling is the great "reviews" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.
0	Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.<br /><br />Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.<br /><br />The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.
0	It hurt to watch this movie, it really did... I wanted to like it, even going in. Shot obviously for very little cash, I looked past and told myself to appreciate the inspiration. Unfortunately, although I did appreciate the film on that level, the acting and editing was terrible, and the last 25-30 minutes were severe thumb-twiddling territory. A 95 minute film should not drag. The ratings for this one are good so far, but I fear that the friends and family might have had a say in that one. What was with those transitions? Dear Mr. Editor, did you just purchase your first copy of Adobe Premiere and make it your main goal to use all the goofy transitions that come with that silly program? Anyway... some better actors, a little more passion, and some more appealing editing and this makes a decent movie.
0	This film seems well made, and more efforts should be made to promote films by women. That aside, this film is also profoundly disturbing in that it justifies the manipulative and psychotic machinations of a character that is profoundly disturbed. If you've seen any of the promotional material, you might think this is a poignant film about a relationship that's reached its end, but none of that suggests how really disturbing the central premise is:<br /><br />A woman threatens suicide unless her soon to be ex agrees to relive here most treasured memories of their relationship. When told how unfair (to say the least) that such a threat is, Tessa (the purported protagonist) suggests that "life's not fair."<br /><br />Huh??? This character also uses tears to manipulate her former lover into staying, and coaxes him into sexually oriented behavior (which she initially denies as a motive) all the while assuring him "this isn't sex."<br /><br />Reverse the genders, have the leads played by Tracey Gold and Brian Austin-Green and this could air in feature length on Lifetime with a title like "Hostage to Obsession." There is no medically accepted definition of sound mental and emotional stability that would encompass Tessa's behavior in this film.<br /><br />Props to Kristen Thomson for playing a border-line psychotic, manipulative ex to a T, perhaps too well because there is no well-adjusted person, male or female, who could watch this and not have shivers run up their spine.
0	Sorry, but Jacqueline Hyde (get it??? - Jack L and Hyde - Jekyll & Hyde) has some of the worst acting this side of hardcore porn, not to mention a script apparently written by a first-grader with undiagnosed learning disabilities.<br /><br />Jackie Hyde inherits an old mansion by a grandfather she never knew she had. Guess who? Yes, an inventor of the special formula that slowly takes over one's body and mind - yes, that Mr. Hyde! <br /><br />Despite some nice skin scenes, this film fails to register any feeling or emotion other than uncontrollable laughter.<br /><br />As much as poor Jackie tries she just can't stay away from granddaddy's special formula and the result is an hour and half of wasted time.
0	Jacqueline Hyde starts like any other normal day for telemarketing individual Jackie Hyde (co-producer Gabriella Hall) until her boss (Robert Donovan) fires her for taking personal calls at work, however it's not all bad news as the call she took was from a lawyer informing her that her Grandfather (Malcolm Bennett) has recently died & that he left her his mansion & fortune (why doesn't stuff like that ever happen to me? Sigh). Very excited Jackie heads on over there & makes herself right at home, while looking for the thermostat late one night Jackie stumbles upon a secret room where her Grandfather stashes the bright red formula that he invented that allows whoever drinks it to change their appearance. Being a bit on the porky side Jackie finally settles on the glamorous Jacqueline (Blythe Metz), however Jackie's better looking alter-ego starts to take control...<br /><br />Written, co-produced & directed by Rolfe Kanefsky I thought Jacqueline Hyde was complete total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. According to the opening credits Jacqueline Hyde was 'inspired' by the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', frankly if Mr. Stevenson could see what was being done to his story here he'd turn in his grave. For a start I think Jacqueline Hyde was/is intended to be a horror film, the IMDb certainly lists it as such but there isn't any horror in it at all apart from just how bad it is. I would say that Jacqueline Hyde is more a soft-core porno than anything else & extremely tame with it, why sit down & watch this softer than soft porno crap when you can watch you proper hard-core stuff that actually delivers the goods? Why, that's the question I ask here. It's not even good porn either, besides being far too soft it's dull, boring & the not-worth-mentioning sex scenes are few & far between. The most intelligent aspect of this film is the title which would have been quite clever if not for the fact that another film used the Jacqueline Hyde (1998) title during the last century & judging by the IMDb's plot summary it sounds a hell of a lot better than this piece of rubbish. This is one of those films you have to watch yourself to see just how bad it is but just hope that you never get the opportunity.<br /><br />Director Kanefsky was obviously working on a low budget but that's not an excuse these days, shot on a digital camcorder the film looks cheap & the few instances of CGI look like they came from a Nintendo Gameboy, the final 'shocking' twist has probably the worst morph effect I've ever seen & is pretty good for a laugh as is the scene when Jackie's breasts grow via more terrible CGI. That's another thing, the film takes itself far too seriously. The subject matter sucks, is far too predictable & makes for a poor film but maybe if the dialogue had been intentionally funny with some dirty porn talk the film might have been more fun to watch, alas it isn't so it isn't. Forget about any decent horror, violence or gore as there isn't any apart from a surprisingly bloodless decapitation at the end.<br /><br />Technically Jacqueline Hyde is home made film type stuff, the photography is of the flat hand held point-&-shoot variety, the music, production design & special effects are of a suitably low standard to match the script. The acting was awful, seriously this is bad.<br /><br />Jacqueline Hyde in my opinion a load of crap, there is not one positive thing about this turgid film that I can think of. Any proper film lover will have an almost impossible time trying to find any redeeming value in this crap, definitely one to avoid.
0	Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for thought.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.<br /><br />While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.<br /><br />Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.<br /><br />Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE.
0	This film, which I rented under the title "Black Voodoo" should be avoided. I was expecting a blaxploitation/horror flick; but what I got was a very dull, standard "ghost extracts vegence". In this case the ghost was that of a religious cult leader who tried to refuse treatment, but who's plea was ignored and he died in an operation. The result: his spirit posesses Nurse Sherry and forces her to commit acts of murder. The only voodoo connection was to one of the three black characters, in this case a blinded ex-football player, who's mom practiced voodoo. The film is very slow and very dull. There is a very standard ending that provides on excitement, followed by a horrificly stupid ending (warning: SPOILER)<br /><br />In which a woman actually manages to defend herself against murder charges by saying she was possessed. This movie is slow, and bad in a non-funny, just stupefying way. Avoid it at all costs.
0	The first 20 minutes were a little fun because I don't think I've seen a film this bad before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The rest of the running time seemed to drag forever with every cliche in dialog used to no effect. These people seemed to not really like horror movies or how to make them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've seen 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the worst film I've ever seen. Here's an example of how bad it is: There's one scene where something green comes through the door. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's green crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to Nurse Sherri to possess her I suppose. I could not believe they had the lack of pride to show this embarrassment.
0	I only came here to check Terror Hospital for an alternate title so I'd know what not to pick up. Not only do I get the original title, but I come to find Terror Hospital is one of seven more aliases.This one is a real clunker. Movies like this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended consequences of the feature on every level of production that result in at least a mild form of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. Instead, the viewer is witness to redundantly unnecessary and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation exposition and drawn out scenes of characters warily moving from room to room, and all this is half of the film. Forget trying to figure out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't care, anyway. There is also a random car chase sequence that seems quite dull when compared to some of the old driver's ed movies I slep... er, I mean sat through and watched way back in high school. Really, we're talking about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the loose here - not a bad recipe for trash cinema. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to make it even "good" trash; when joined to the aforementioned, the bad acting and not-so-special effects are just that - bad acting and not-so-special effects. This one's just trash, pure and simple. Leave it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that box at the yard sale. There's a reason its there...
0	This is a hard film to rate. While it truly deserves its 3 (or perhaps even a two), for an Al Adamson film, it's exceptional--and practically Adamson's very best. That's because unlike many Adamson films, there are times when NURSE SHERRI almost looks competent. But, being an Adamson film, you know that sooner or later that crappiness MUST rear its ugly head! <br /><br />The film begins with some bizarre cult leader of a huge congregation (six) trying to resurrect a dead guy who looks like he's made of blue cheese. However, in the process, the cult dude has a heart attack and it taken to the hospital. He apparently dies, but it also seems like many of these hospital scenes are missing and a few of them appear much later in the film. In other words, when you see the film, he appears to have possibly recovered--only to hear later that he'd died. Because the guy is the b.f.f. of Satan, however, his evil soul can't die and he comes back to both haunt one of his henchmen and to possess Nurse Sherri.<br /><br />Now, Sherri is obviously a very disturbed lady--demonic possession or not. At times she acts like a zombie and at others she's violently homicidal. So I ask..."why didn't her boyfriend (a doctor) think this was, perhaps, problematic?!". In other words, after trying to kill a patient, he neither gets an exorcist nor commits her to the booby hatch!!! Oh, and speaking of boobies...this movie is NOT the breast-filled sex romp its title and posters would indicate. While there are a few bare breasts here and there, they are irrelevant to the plot and only seen very briefly (1/2 second or so) in all but one scene. So, if you are a perv, this movie is not for you--though a few places in the film (such as the nurse undressing for a patient) make it look like the film MIGHT have, at one time, been designed as a porn flick.<br /><br />If you are a bad movie fan, however, there is enough to whet your appetite. Some examples of incompetence are the inability of many of the actors to deliver lines that aren't zombie-like--and I am not even talking about Sherri. Especially noticeable is one of the very final scenes--I have never seen and heard some stilted acting and dialog in my life--and this includes Ed Wood's films! There are also a few more cheap touches, such as the bad animation of the "green stuff", the doctor finding a murdered nurse yet continuing to investigate in a house where walls are covered in blood (I'd get a cop...better yet, an army of cops).<br /><br />So despite these problems, why do I think it's good for an Adamson film? Well, the story isn't all bad and he was able to build tension very well. Many false alarms early on made my heart race a bit. Also, the car crash, while irrelevant, came off pretty well and was practically big-budget for Adamson.<br /><br />Overall, not a good film and one most people would be bored watching. However, fans of Adamson or inept films will like it--it does deliver some entertainment in a cheesy manner that will provide a few laughs.
0	Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.<br /><br />And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.
0	I bought this on VHS as "Terror Hospital", and when I got home I checked IMDb and was like OMG it's the legendary "Nurse Sherri"!!! So here's another one from Al Adamson, who had clearly learned some minuscule amount about film-making since the "Blood of Dracula's Castle" days. Where that earlier effort is a more or less totally sclerotic lump, this one mixes it up a little, adding a definite element of variety and surprise amid the incompetence. Sure half of the movie is a blind post-op football player shooting the breeze with his stacked nurse, but at any moment we might be cutting away to the cackling disembodied head of the satanist mastermind, or Nurse Sherri running a farmer through with a pitchfork, or a wee bit of abstract student-film quick cutting to go with the pulsing-blob effects in the possession scene, or the most gratuitously half-hearted topless bit ever, or god knows what else (I forget, to be honest). As dumb-ass pieces of sh*t go, this one runs toward the high end. Congrats, Al.
0	The film opens with a cult leader attempting to resurrect a dead member with his followers chanting for his rebirth as the sun strikes upon them in the desert. Reanhauer(Bill Roy)believes wholeheartedly in his power, and gets so worked up that he collapses with what appeared to be a heart attack. Unable to keep him alive, all those involved, doctors and nurses, are sentenced for attack with Reanhauer's demonic spirit invading the curvaceous body of nurse Sherri(..big-chested Jill Jacobson)targeting each one using her as a tool of vengeance. Forced against her will, with no memory of inflicting such harm, Sherri's host body murders selected victims. Fortunately, Sherri's fellow co-worker, nurse Tara(Marilyn Joi)begins a rather blossoming romance with a blinded patient, Marcus Washington(Prentiss Moulden), once a star football player, whose mother was a practitioner of voodoo. Through Marcus' knowledge, passed down from mom, Tara finds out about possession and how to possibly save Sherri before she murders everyone unknowingly. Meanwhile, Sherri's lover, Dr. Peter Desmond(Geoffrey Land)worries about her present condition and welfare.<br /><br />Well, this was my first Al Adamson film and I must agree with his detractors that, just from this film alone, it seems he holds them together with paper clips and Elmer's glue. The animation with which we see the spirit take control of Sherri is beyond awful and rather laughable. A little soft-core nonsense as filler, some demonic possession thrown in the mix(Sherri actually speaks in another voice when she's possessed), with naughty nurse behavior(..the three nurses focused on in the film all are quite sexually active and free-spirited)and a little bit violence/gore. The film is essentially shot in tiny rooms with dull dialogue from a rather mundane cast. The sexual situations aren't that hard-core and Al often shoots them without revealing all that much. The film looks embarrassingly cheap and there's an absence of thrills, although the chilling score(..which sounds like something from Dark Shadows)does help a little bit. Jacobson and Mary Kay Pass(..as nurse Beth who seems to be a nymphomaniac if she'll even screw a nutty patient, always complaining of illnesses he really doesn't have, with enough chest hair to declare him a Neanderthal)aren't bad looking, and Adamson's story-line, although frail, is somewhat coherent(..it seems he rarely directs films which are). Overall, the movie looks like it cost 5 bucks and Adamson just can not overcome the budgetary restrictions(..or, in my opinion, create an unpleasant enough atmosphere due to a sometimes plodding narrative and tedious scenes which do little for the story). John F Goff has the role of the hospital's psychiatrist who wants to commit Sherri, not believing the idea that she was possessed;he constantly bickers with Peter over her. I watched the unrated "lost" version which I guess is the real version to watch of Nurse Sherri.
0	Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.
0	I was completely bored with this film, melodramatic for no apparent reason. Every thing just becomes so serious and people are swearing with really dumb expressions. Then there is a serial Killer who apparently can Kill one person to get the title of serial Killer. Well the serial Killer likes butterflies and is illustrated by sound effects you might hear in the dream sequence of most modern films;<br /><br />why oh why? I nave no idea. It really really wants to be scary, but I think in this universe scary equals talk a whole bunch and add dark ambient noises.Just for the record, this is in no way is a horror film, its most definitely a thriller (barely). Really movie makers nowadays need to do their homework before making "horror" films or at least calling a movie a "horror" film. it makes me say (in too may words ironically) "acolytes, you take forever to say nothing."
0	A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid.
0	This was a decent movie for the first half. Too many cheap BOO! moments but the tension builds, the bad guys are creepy and everything seems to be setting itself up nicely. The kids are not particularly deep but hey, that works for teens. <br /><br />Then it just gets ridiculous and tries way too hard- the "why in the world would he/they do that?" moments overwhelm anyone's capacity for suspension of disbelief, the twist involves too many ridiculous coincidences, and the title comes from a late attempt to philosophize some meaning into the film that goes nowhere and is quickly dropped. There was laughter in the theater at moments that were in no way supposed to be funny. <br /><br />Great premise but just badly written and doesn't hold together. Some very nice shots but they're hard to enjoy while you're rolling your eyes.
0	Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in "screaming teen" cliché horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.<br /><br />Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.<br /><br />As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.<br /><br />Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of cliché, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.<br /><br />Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.<br /><br />The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.<br /><br />Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.<br /><br />If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion.
0	I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" comes to mind) but not for this director.<br /><br />Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). "Bobbycrush" is really just a waste of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.
0	It's Saturday, it's raining, and I think every movie should have at least one comment... so I just watched "The Crime Doctor's Courage" all the way through. It's a murder mystery with a typical cast of characters, and a couple of the usual suspects -- each with their own possible motive for the crime. The story starts abruptly and the viewer is thrown into the plot with no character development or storytelling whatsoever. I guess that's not too surprising for a B movie of this period. There are also some moments which look and feel like this is pre-WWII, but perhaps that is due to the writer's background in radio shows.<br /><br />The "Crime Doctor" is the sleuth who happens to be visiting California for some R&R from his psychiatry practice on the East coast. He hooks up with a mystery novelist friend with whom it is implied has been along for one or more previous mystery solving capers. The novelist occasionally fills the role of sidekick to our sleuth (AKA Dr. Watson), and also occasionally lightens things up with a bit of comic relief (sort of).<br /><br />There is also a somewhat simple, but not quite bumbling police captain who at times is annoyed by the meddling sleuth. And then there are the mysterious Braggas, a brother and sister who are dance artists at a night-club. The dance is sort of an interpretive dance that happens to be one of those moments which feels more like the 30's than the 40's. Though the story location is California, the Braggas appear to live in a castle!<br /><br />There was one plot element which managed to keep me somewhat amused, but I won't divulge any more than that because I always enjoy movies more when the story is discovered, rather than known in advance. (even though I can think of many, many, B films which would rate higher and it is difficult to say that watching this one is time well spent) I have not seen any other movies from the "Crime Doctor" series, so I can't make any comparisons.
0	Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.<br /><br />The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.<br /><br />Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".<br /><br />The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.<br /><br />The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.
0	Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.
0	My parents used to rent a lot of horror movies when I was a child. We loved watching them even when they were bad they made for some enjoyment. This was one such movie, kind of hard to review as I have only seen it the one time as a child, but it is not anything I want to track down again so I can do a more in-depth review. The story has some old horror actor legend dying. I seem to remember he acted a bit like an over the top Vincent Price, without being likable and classy. He commits murders and dies, but what is this? Is the movie over already? No, as some kids for some reason snag the body and are prepared for a fun night of being killed by the ham from beyond the grave. I remember the murders were nothing all that special after the first couple and I remember this movie was rather disappointing. Seemed to have a good premise, but it just failed to deliver the goods as more cool kills were needed and that super horror actor needed to add a bit to his repertoire.
0	One of the last surviving horror screen greats - Conrad Radzoff - dies and has his body placed in a mausoleum with televised-before-death snippets of the great Conrad greeting you as you visit. Unfortunately for him and his captors, Conrad's body is "borrowed" by a gang of four boys and three girls and taken to a huge manor where they drink with him, toast him, dance with him, laugh with and at him, and then put him to bed in a casket which just happens to by lying in a room upstairs. News of the missing body reaches Radzoff's widow and her friend(who happens to be proficient in the black arts) and she holds some kind of ceremony that brings Conrad back to life so he can, in his own words, get "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Well, Frightmare is an interesting "bad" film. Sure, it is cheap. The sets look like they were borrowed(which I am sure they were). The special effects and blood and guts are done liberally and with little credibility. The acting is average to below average with a few exceptions. Jeffrey Combs of Re-Animator fame is in tow, but really he does little in this rather thankless role as a horror obsessed teen that needs to steal a dead man's body for kicks. None of the "kids" except the pretty girl playing Meg is any good. Nita Talbot plays the "friend" of the Radzoffs with withering interest. Also, look for the big - I mean big - guy that plays the policeman. That is Porky himself of Porkys fame. But thankfully for all of us, one performance does rise above the material. Ferdy Mayne, an oft overlooked actor from Germany who had Christopher Lee features and did star as a vampire in The Fearless Vampire Killers, does a more than commendable job as the aging horror icon in public life and a real demon of a man in private life. Conrad Radzoff in a bad human being in life, living solely for his own pleasures and we see him kill twice before he is even dead(obviously none of the swinging teens at that point). Mayne is able to look very regal, speak very elegantly, and convey menace with ease. If for no other reason, one should see Frightmare for his performance. I do; however, believe that when they showed black and white clips of Radzoff that they used Christopher Lee footage(anyone have any thoughts?). Anyway, one can guess what happens and it does indeed: Radzoff goes out and goes after the kids that disturbed his peace. Again, the formula is trite and overused. The acting for the most part is anemic, and the direction oh so ridiculous. But Mayne gives a good performance in a sea of ineptitude. Definitely worth a little peek. Watching Mayne keep popping up on screens in his mausoleum brought a wry smile to my lips each time.
0	Conrad Radzoff(Ferdy Mayne), a hammy cult icon, dies from a heart ailment(not before disposing of an ungrateful assistant and TV commercial director, both of whom disrespected him with showers of insults). His body is removed from his mausoleum by some film students(they wish to "invite him to dinner"..they are quite big fans). What these kids(..including a young Jeffrey Combs)don't expect is that Radzoff will be resurrected by a medium to wreak havoc on those who removed him from his place of rest.<br /><br />The list of violent acts include Radzoff pulling one guy's tongue out, setting a woman on fire, elevating a casket which crushes a woman's face, decapitates one fellow, and cremates another guy alive in a coffin. A really weird soundtrack and pesky fog wraps around Radzoff's ghoulish activities.<br /><br />Silly hokum from Troma is limited by a very, very low budget and slowwwwww pace. The film feels a lot longer than it is. The film isn't really that gory and we can hardly see much violence because the film is often too damn dark. At times, Radzoff is an ominous presence, yet at other times he just looks real silly.
0	I don't get it! The teenage leads in "Horror Star" supposedly all are devoted horror fans, yet when their favorite idol (Conrad Radzoff) passes away, they dig up his corpse and do all sorts of disrespectful stuff with it, like disco-dancing it around the house and throw food leftovers at it. That doesn't sound like something real horror fans would do, now does it? I'm a big horror fan and I immensely idolize departed icons like Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff, but it would never come to my mind to ridicule their memory. No wonder Conrad comes back from the dead – admittedly, after a séance – to wipe them all off the face of the earth! Mr. Radzoff already wasn't known for his friendliness in life, since he occasionally killed the directors that disagreed with his visions, and even after his death he suffers from a tremendous ego. Even inside his tomb there are video messages to petrify possible visitors and the group of teenagers will vividly experience that he also enjoys the murdering business outside his film sets. "Horror Star" (a.k.a. "Frightmare" and "Body Snatchers") is a pretty lame 80's horror flick, but there are a handful of cheesy & gory highlights to enjoy. The film mainly suffers from its own stupid plot, since no one – not even a film school student – is stupid enough to steal a recently buried corpse and actually think he'll get away with it, and there are too many tedious moments to struggle through. Conrad's video-speeches from beyond the grave are overly talkative and definitely undermine the tension, but on the other hand his killing methods are pleasingly inventive. One teenager enjoys the experience of getting cremated alive and another one (Jeffrey Combs in one of his first roles!) loses his head in a delightful decapitation sequence. In the absolute messiest sequence, a poor girl' head is crushed by a coffin. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane wanted to bring homage to vintage horror cinema and he obviously how to make film look sinister. The locations and scenery are great, but Vane lacked the necessary funds to provide his film with a proper continuity and editing-job. The acting performances are overall decent, with Ferdy Mayne (imitating Christopher Lee) and Jeffrey Combs delivering the most memorable roles. "Horror Star" can hardly be called a must-see or even a good film, but it's worth tracking down in case you're an admirer of enthusiastically made B-horror.
0	1983's "Frightmare" is an odd little film. The director seems to be trying to combine the atmosphere of classic '30s/'40s style horror movies with the shock factor of the then-exploding '80s slasher genre. It isn't totally successful (mostly due to very obvious budgetary restraints, and the less-than-professional caliber of its cast of young actors) but it still has its moments, mostly due to the classy performance (classier than the movie deserves) by the late German actor Ferdinand Mayne, who plays an aging old time horror movie star (ala Vincent Price) named "Conrad Ratzoff." At the beginning of the movie we meet the has-been horror star as he's shooting a commercial for dentures and we quickly learn that ol' Conrad is a bit of a hoity-toity, prima donna jerk-off. Just when you think he couldn't be any more un-likable, the commercial director berates Conrad for blowing a take for the umpteenth time and the old goat pushes him off a balcony to his death. Nice, huh? Conrad then visits some fans at a college campus horror movie club, unfortunately he suffers a heart attack in the middle of his speech to them and eventually ends up back at his mansion waiting to die. Still feisty even at Death's door, he manages to do away with a despised business associate by smothering him with a pillow before he finally kicks the bucket himself. Conrad is then laid to rest in true Hollywood style in a high tech neon tomb with video screens above the casket, which will play personal video messages from Conrad himself for visitors who enter to pay their respects.<br /><br />It is at this point that the kids from the college Horror Movie Society decide to pay Conrad's grave an after hours visit, breaking into the tomb and taking his body back home with them for an all night party. (Not exactly my idea of fun, but hey, these are characters in an '80s horror film. Logic has no place here.) The college kids spend the evening having dinner with Conrad's body seated in a place of honor, posing for photos with it and even dancing around the room with it, before parking Conrad and his coffin in the attic, planning to return him to his crypt in the morning. In the meantime, Mrs. Ratzoff, distraught over the theft of her husband's body, has called in a psychic friend to try and "reach" Conrad through a seance. You can pretty much figure out the rest from here. Since Conrad wasn't a very nice guy in life, it's not much of a stretch to assume that he won't be any friendlier in death. Psychic Lady makes contact with Conrad and he re-awakens in predictably ticked off fashion, then spends the rest of the movie strolling around the corridors of the students' ridiculously huge house, picking off the young grave robbers one by one. This is where the movie falls apart. Endless scenes of teens wandering around empty hallways saying "Hello? Is anyone there?" are intercut with occasional bursts of violence (we do get a pretty gnarly decapitation scene, which is the highlight of the movie) before the last two survivors finally figure out (WAY later than any semi-intelligent people would have figured out the same thing...but again, we're in an '80s horror film!) that the only way to stop the mayhem is to get Conrad's body back to its crypt where it belongs. The sluggish pacing is padded out with a lot of weird lighting and dry ice fog effects backed by a soundtrack made up almost entirely of sound effects rather than music(thunder, moans and groans, howls, etc.) that becomes severely annoying after a while.<br /><br />I can't really recommend "Frightmare" to anyone who didn't grow up watching cheap movies like this on late night cable back in the '80s. "Modern Horror" fans will doubtlessly find "Frightmare" incredibly slow moving and goofy. If you came of age in that magical decade, however, you may get a blast of nostalgia from "Frightmare." Fans of Jeffrey ("Re-Animator") Combs may also want to check it out, as the future Dr. West appears in an early role here as one of the unlucky film students.<br /><br />I will advise the reader to avoid the version of this film on the EastWestDVD label (paired with Roy Ward's "Vault of Horror" and sold at dollar stores) because the print quality is terrible. I'm told the film has gotten a deluxe release via the fine folks at Troma, which seems appropriate. If you're a Troma kind of person then "Frightmare" will be right up your alley.
0	I thought maybe... maybe this could be good. An early appearance by the Re-Animator (Jeffery Combs); many homage's to old horror movies; the Troma label on the front… this movie could be a gem! I thought wrong.<br /><br />Frightmare is a boring, overplayed, half assed homage to the fright films of yore. The story is an old one, young people breaking into a house, getting drunk, making love, and tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with. The oft – recycled slasher film formula is used here, this time with a thought to be dead actor named Conrad Radzoff doing the killing. In fact, the performance by the Radzoff's actor Ferdy Mayne is the only redeeming quality of this film. He does the snooty Dracula style character very well. But as for the kids, its not so good, with Combs only having a minimal part.<br /><br />The film lacks entertainment value, and only features one cool character, and one or two scenes that can hold your attention. I do not recommend this film unless you are desperate for something to watch, and this is the only movie left at blockbuster.
0	This show should be titled, "When Bad Writing Happens To Good Actors" considering most of the players have demonstrated immense talent in other venues, e.g. Andre Braugher in Homicide: Life on the Street and David Morse in St. Elsewhere. I'm hoping that the frenetic pacing of the show is adjusted as the series develops along with the obvious cliches and dialogue so absurd I wondered just how stupid the writers imagined the core audience to be. We're beat over the head with the main points of this show instead of being left to gradually figure it out, almost as if the writers feel that they must spell out that the main character is some sort of avenging angel, sentenced to redeem himself from sins, both venial and mortal, via butting into his cab fares many affairs. Watching the premiere required much suspension of disbelief, that Mike Olshanskey's fares would so rapidly spill their guts and he would feel driven to intervene in the lives of utter strangers. That he possesses those "Super-Cop" abilities, to be all things to all people, weapons expert, martial arts master, psychologist, father-confessor, locksmith, and so on, ad infinitum. Pure drivelesque fantasy. What is it about recent televisions shows based in Philidelphia that they all seem to be imbued with a nasty ex-wife and a very disrepectfully bratty child? Overdone. I wanted to like this show, really I did, because it had the virtue of having a premise slightly different than many of the clones appearing in this season's fare and it stars some of my preferred actors. But I'm afraid this is just another possibly good idea ruined by careless execution.
0	generally speaking I don't make negative comments on here. But since this is a festival piece, I don't want you to waste your time when you could see something else that might not be playing again.<br /><br />I thought the actors were pretty bad. For instance, they totally didn't play off each other, rather, they waited to RECITE their lines which were pretty poor to begin with. The dialogue sounded really forced. Norman or whatever his name tried, or so it would appear, to be witty and biting in the lines he chose but just fell really short.<br /><br />After words he asked if anyone saw the ending coming and some people were all "yea", and he all but called them liars. Look there were so many clues, the biggest being a briefcase full of cash for a $500 an hour whore. I mean the john gave her at least 20g's... tell tale sign. Now no you couldn't see exactly what was going to happen but by the time the twist actually occurred, I for one, didn't even care. I was just glad to get out of there. I asked him which draft he shot and he said 8.1, maybe next time he will wait to shoot 'til 15.3 cause this needed a lot of work.<br /><br />But he seemed like a fairly nice guy, he is making his own films, he'll probably get better and I hope he does, not in a snotty way either, I mean it, I wish him luck. Just remember, this is just my opinion.
0	That snarl...<br /><br />That scowl...<br /><br />The acts of random violence...<br /><br />The gutteral voice...<br /><br />The fetish wear...<br /><br />That shaven head...<br /><br />It can mean only one thing...<br /><br />GRACE JONES IS BACK!<br /><br />Actually my sources tell me that the title role in Blade wasn't played by the 1980s diva, but by Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />All in all this is not an improvement.<br /><br />Blade is an adaptation of a comic character; somehow in the transfer from the simplistic, two-dimensional world of the printed page it has become even more simplistic and lost a couple of dimensions.<br /><br />The plot is hackneyed almost beyond belief and adds nothing to the vampire genre, in fact, much like Nosferatu, it seems to suck the life out of the audience. In brief, upwardly mobile vampire wants to become more powerful but is opposed by Blade, half-human, half-vampire, all annoying. It all climaxes with Blade being put in a vampire juice press, some bad martial arts and the most pitiful CGI since 1968.<br /><br />Blade has to be the least empathic character since Dolph Lundgren's Punisher (also a comic adaptation, perhaps there is a trend here?). Surely the audience is meant to be on the same side as the 'hero'? And whilst a vampire can be a tragic character, this is not true of Blade, he is relentlessly cruel, scornful and not a whole lot better than the bad guys.<br /><br />I assume that Wesley Snipes has an 'acting' career purely so that everyone else can be compared favourably. As he snarls his way through his movie you find yourself looking for a stake - even a ballpoint pen - anything to put Blade in the grave. <br /><br />As a piece of narcissism, Blade is pretty much unbeatable - we are treated to endless lingering shots of a gym-fresh Snipes for no reason whatsoever. Likewise no other actor is allowed any chance to give a reasonable performance; the likes of Steven Dorff *CAN* act, but they have to play second fiddle to Snipes' tedious performance.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson used to appear in good movies, here he is reduced to a sidekick that you just know isn't going to make it through to the final reel. And what happens when Blade finds out? Yes, you guessed it, he rushes to the scene to wreak his revenge in the villain's giant underground lair.<br /><br />Why can't world-domination take place in a quiet country house? They always go ahead in underground cathedrals that would have had Albert Speer wondering if they were a little grandiose. A lot of these plans could be stopped right now if local councils paid more attention to plans for extending sub-basements. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is just as dull and unimaginative with nothing new to add to the genre. Vampires have been done to undeath and perhaps they should be laid to rest for a while - at least until someone can think of some way to make them interesting again.<br /><br />To finish, there *IS* a Grace Jones vampire movie, it's called Vamp and it's about ten times better than this.
0	Not like I went in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't even that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, zero characterization, little to no thought, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). Sure, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a good (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can say this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead.
0	I wish I knew what to make of a movie like this. It seems to be divided into two parts -- action sequences and personal dramas ashore. It follows Ashton Kutsher through survival swimmer school, guided by Master Chief Kevin Costner, then to Alaska where a couple of spectacular rescues take place, the last resulting in death.<br /><br />I must say that the scenes on the beach struck me as so stereotypical in so many ways that they should be barnacle encrusted. A typical bar room fight between Navy guys and Coast Guardsmen ("puddle pirates"). The experienced old timer Costner who is, as an elderly bar tender tells him, "married to the Coast Guard." The older chief who "keeps trying to prove to himself that he's still nineteen." The neglected ex wife ashore to whom Kostner pays a farewell visit. The seemingly sadistic demands placed on the swimmers by the instructors, all in pursuit of a loftier goal. The gifted young man hobbled by a troubled past.<br /><br />The problem is that we've seen it all before. If it's Kevin Costner here, it's Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Lou Gosset Jr. or Vigo Mortenson or Robert DeNiro elsewhere. And the climactic scene has elements drawn shamelessly from "The Perfect Storm" and "Dead Calm." None of it is fresh and none of the old stereotyped characters and situations are handled with any originality.<br /><br />It works best as a kind of documentary of what goes on in the swimmer's school and what could happen afterward and even that's a little weak because we don't get much in the way of instruction. It's mostly personal conflict, romance, and tension about washing out.<br /><br />It's a shame because the U. S. Coast Guard is rather a noble outfit, its official mission being "the safety of lives and property at sea." In war time it is transferred to the Navy Department and serves in combat roles. In World War II, the Coast Guard even managed to have a Medal of Honor winner in its ranks.<br /><br />But, again, we don't learn much about that. We don't really learn much about anything. The film devolves into a succession of visual displays and not too much else. A disappointment.
0	I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.
0	I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.
0	Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.
0	We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.<br /><br />Just terrible
0	This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10
0	I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.<br /><br />I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.<br /><br />The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!
0	This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
0	A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.<br /><br />It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.<br /><br />She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.<br /><br />Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).<br /><br />The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.<br /><br />People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).<br /><br />In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?
0	Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!"
0	"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.
0	A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****
0	Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.<br /><br />A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.
0	There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!<br /><br />Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."<br /><br />So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.<br /><br />On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.
0	Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.<br /><br />A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.<br /><br />The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.<br /><br />Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.<br /><br />This is my truth - what is yours?
0	An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?<br /><br />Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).<br /><br />The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.<br /><br />His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.<br /><br />After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.<br /><br />None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.<br /><br />Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).
0	Talented screenwriter Alvin Sargent sadly cannot get any engaging ideas cooking in this artificial trifle about a wayward mother and her mature teenage daughter trying to make their lives work in Los Angeles despite mom's flighty behavior. Apart from several good sequences, I didn't quite buy Susan Sarandon as a flake (she's too intrinsically smart and focused to be passed off as this devil-may-care lady), and her naturally grounded personality is a bad fit for the role of an irresponsible parent. Natalie Portman fares much better as her kid, and yet there's a creepy aloofness to her work (and some of her scenes, such as the one where she asks a boy to strip, are misguided and uncomfortable to watch). Certainly not an incompetent piece, "Anywhere But Here" does have moments that work, but it isn't an embraceable film, nor has it proved to be an important one. ** from ****
0	This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.
0	An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.
0	OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...<br /><br />I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.<br /><br />Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of "running upstairs" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...<br /><br />I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a "Mystery Guest Star" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize "the old guy from 'Star Wars'"). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.<br /><br />People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...<br /><br />2/10.
0	I found this movie really hard to sit through, my attention kept wandering off the tv. As far as romantic movies go..this one is the worst I've seen. Don't bother with it.
0	No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! This is not a film, this is an excuse to show people dancing. This is just not good. Even the dancing is slow and not half as entertaining as the mediocre 'Dirty Dancing', let alone any other good dance movie.<br /><br />Is it a love story? Is it a musical? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? It's not that this movie is a bit of all, it's that this movie fails at everything it attempts to be. The film turns out to be even more meaningless as the film progresses.<br /><br />Acting is terrible from all sides, the screenplay is definitely trying to tell us something about relationship but fails miserably.<br /><br />WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When Patrick Stewart enters the scene and you think the film might get better as he brightens up the dull atmosphere. For a second.
0	Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".
0	A sprawling, overambitious, plotless comedy that has no dramatic center. It was probably intended to have an epic vision and a surrealistic flair (at least in some episodes), but the separate stories are never elevated into a meaningful whole, and the laughs are few and far between. Amusing ending, though. (*1/2)
0	Okay, so it was never going to change the world, and it bombed at the box office, but Honky Tonk Freeway is one of those films I fell in love with as a child (the BBC showed it a few times during the 1980s and I happened to have a high quality VHS tape in the machine - lucky, that!) and watched endlessly. I watched the DVD last night and sadly, time has not been kind to this would-be blockbuster. Either that or I've just grown out of this kind of broad, dopey humour. Come on, when Schlesinger is so desperate for laughs he gives us close-ups of novelty underpants with 'amusing' slogans, what can you say about the cast or screenplay?<br /><br />Certainly, it's ambitious, interesting, unusual and sprawling, but it's never once laugh-out-loud funny. I'd describe it as a children's film with some 'adult' overtones - you can safely let your youngsters watch this, despite the 15 certificate. They won't get the drug references, so don't worry about it. I had a pleasant surprise when I realized I'd forgotten just how catchy both the title song and the song-writing truck driver's 'Everybody's Going Faster, Faster' song were, not to mention the town of Ticlaw's patriotic anthem. The whole cast give commendable performances, the photography is crisp and captures the mood of the various locations perfectly, and there's a real time capsule feeling about the fashions, the cars, the gadgets (especially the dashboard-mounted drum machine), the interiors and the pop-culture references - I was more than a little surprised to hear the nutty bum in the bank loudly telling everyone "I'm OJ Simpson!", particularly now Simpson's legal tangles have overshadowed his sporting achievements. The snag is, there's almost no plot to speak of, it's way too obvious to be witty and not funny enough to elicit many genuine laughs. I wish I'd left this one as a pleasant memory.
0	STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.<br /><br />I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.
0	Now I understand that this took two months to shoot. Really? I'm pretty certain my crew could do it in less than a week. This movie sucked so bad I couldn't even pay close attention. Just more proof that boob bearing women can't always save you from horrible writing, acting and direction. Now I understand it was a no budget endeavor, but there is also no continuity and no real reason to not to turn it off and watch infomercials or foreign news in a language you don't understand. Oh, there are a few decent looking females showing the goods. Still, there aren't enough sexy women alive to warrant watching this travesty perpetrated on the film industry. One of the longest 80 minutes of my life. I trooped it out though with the help of my old friend Jim Beam. Do yourself a favor and get your gun ready cuz you may want to use it after this hack job. Lastly, the individual (moron) who left a comment before mine thought this was a great movie and LOVED it. Just more proof that siblings shouldn't pro-create. Ow, BURN!!! - Captain J
0	Seeing the title of this movie "Stupid Teenagers Must Die" made me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was "Blood and Guts". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, failing in both areas. A group of teenagers is attending a séance at a spooky house and then the killing starts. Sounds over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds nothing whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly made. Because of the lack of light the entire film is grainy. Now this effect can be highly effective, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the story line just stinks. The sound is terrible at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very loud indeed.<br /><br />This is not the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a bad one. For me a 3 out of 10.
0	I have no idea how anyone can give this movie high marks. I didn't rent it thinking it was the next great horror flick, the next great horror spoof, or the next great low-budget horror spoof. Obviously, this isn't meant to scare, but one fatal flaw with the production entirely sapped the joy out of the viewing experience. The sound editing was horrible. I had to work the volume control the entire movie. You can imagine how difficult it is to get into something - even a low-budget spoof - when you're either turning the volume up or down, or trying to anticipate the next time you have to do so. The regular dialogue is very low, and all screams, noises, etc., are VERY loud. We're not talking about toggling between 5 and 7 on the volume control, finding a happy medium at 6. We're talking toggling between 2 and 9 on the volume where it is virtually impossible to leave the volume alone. Again, this movie might be a decent example of what it is meant to be, but you're going to be spending so much time adjusting your volume control that you'll never have the chance to enjoy it.
0	Widow hires a psychopath as a handyman. Sloppy film noir thriller which doesn't make much of its tension promising set-up. (3/10)
0	I can't believe the high marks people have given this film on this site. The writing is incredibly bad with people coming in at just the right time and revealing exactly what the heroine is doing to try to escape. (Don't you just hate it when that happens?). And the acting is so very, very bad that you may get a splinter in your eye from all the scenery being chewed.<br /><br />A nut is holding her hostage, children are outside the open screen, so she whimpers for help instead of screaming when only a moment ago she was brave enough to be smashing windows to yell to these same children.<br /><br />She's finally free and alone in the house. Her chance to go for help, so what does she do? Wanders around the house and lies down. She's in the basement, locked away. So what does she do? Takes a little nap. Come on! Most of the movie is the nut wandering away and finding her sitting there snoozing when he wakes her up. Four times! What? If the writer is too bored to actually write a real plot why should we be paying attention? I think the key here is that it was originally a play for the radio, so they filled in with the heroine just sitting around rather than pretending to be screen writers and actually writing any action.<br /><br />And the ending is horrendous.<br /><br />The whole movie is completely implausible, horribly written and almost comically acted. Beware this movie at all costs!
0	Wow, what an overrated movie this turned out to be! It was supposed to be "an extremely suspenseful tale of a crazed killer holding a woman hostage and in terror in her home." Well, I doubt it terrorized audiences in the early '50s and I know it would put today's audiences asleep.<br /><br />"Sends shivers down the spine," proclaims the New York Times. No, the only shivers I get is that anyone is left on the planet who believes anything the N.Y. Times prints about anything.<br /><br />Well, it was about a deranged man who held a woman hostage for a short time in her house but the man. "Howard Wilton" (Robert Ryan) was actually harmless and friendly. In fact, this was one of the nicest roles Ryan ever played! Yes, "Wilton" was nuts but he never harmed the woman and only wanted a friend to trust.<br /><br />The film even turned boring after awhile with very little going on except a lot of yakking. <br /><br />Beware, my reader.....this sucks.
0	Artificial melodrama with a screenplay adapted by Mel Dinelli from his play "The Man" concerns a boarding-house proprietress taking in a troubled handyman who may be homicidal. Despite solid work from Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan (both trying their best), this tedious yarn isn't very inventive within its one primary set (which quickly becomes visually dull) and underpopulated cast of characters (there is however a smart pooch who senses the worst!). Hokey and humorless, with a stilted direction from Harry Horner (perhaps Lupino should have directed?). Where's all the suspense promised by the ads? Dinelli also served as a co-producer. *1/2 from ****
0	I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.<br /><br />Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.<br /><br />I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. Don't waste your time!
0	The only reason this movie is not given a 1 (awful) vote is that the acting of both Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan is superb. Ida Lupino who is lovely, as usual, becomes increasingly distraught as she tries various means to rid herself of a madman. Robert Ryan is terrifying as the menacing stranger whose character, guided only by his disturbed mind, changes from one minute to the next. Seemingly simple and docile, suddenly he becomes clever and threatening. Ms. Lupino's character was in more danger from that house she lived in and her own stupidity than by anyone who came along. She could not manage to get out of her of her own house: windows didn't open, both front and back doors locked and unlocked from the inside with a key. You could not have designed a worse fire-trap if you tried. She did not take the precaution of having even one extra key. Nor could she figure out how to summon help from nearby neighbors or get out of her own basement while she was locked in and out of sight of her captor. I don't know what war her husband was killed in, but if it was World War II, the furnishings in her house, the styles of the clothes, especially the children and the telephone company repairman's car are clearly anachronistic. I recommend watching this movie just to see what oddities you can find.
0	Beware, My Lovely (1952) Dir: Harry Horner <br /><br />Production: The Filmmakers/RKO Radio Pictures<br /><br />Credulity-straining thriller from the pioneering producer team of Collier Young and Ida Lupino, aka The Filmmakers (with Lupino pitching in with some uncredited direction). <br /><br />Robert Ryan is the 'peril' and Ida Lupino is the 'woman' in this entry in the 'woman in peril' style film. Ryan plays Howard Wilton, a tightly-wound psychotic handyman drifter (noooo, Ryan? I know, hard to believe). Lupino is the lonely war widow, Helen Gordon, who hires Howard to do some work around her house. Things go downhill from there as Howard makes Helen a prisoner in her own home. <br /><br />Howard has a nasty secret, not that he could reveal it. You see, consciousness is a real challenge for him. Maintaining it, that is. He has an unfortunate habit of coming to and finding his employers dead. This is part of the film's problem. The nature of Howard's psychosis is so extreme that it is nearly impossible to believe that he's been free to roam from town to town unobstructed, even in the year 1918 (when the film is set). He can't remember anything that happened ten minutes ago. His violent, threatening, anti-social tendencies are set off by the smallest and most common of things (a young girl flirting, inadequacies involving the war, due to his being rejected for service). I don't know how he even made it past the interview with Helen. There are other implausibilities. If you were locked in your house with a madman, but nonetheless left on your own for periods of time, couldn't you figure out a way to escape? <br /><br />Ryan, I think, is defeated by the material. It feels like he's overplaying his hand. His series of tics and spasms and the tightly coiled bursts of dementia all have a been-there, done-that robotic feel to them. At this point in his career he'd probably played this character, to some degree, ten times and it shows. We are encouraged to empathize with Howard (I didn't) through shown bits of humanity, like him being stopped in his tracks by a music box and his relating to a group of children who won't judge him. Lupino just has to act frazzled and in distress, which she is more than capable of and does. <br /><br />The picture had one thing going for it; what would be the eventual resolution of the conflict? So naturally there was a disappointing ending that was abrupt and ineffective. <br /><br />Of slight interest was a recurring motif where the camera would catch Howard's reflection (in mirrors, water, Christmas tree decorations). This indicated something going on, or about to go on, in his head. Horner (1953's Vicki), who made his reputation in production design, does a fine job of making the house feel like a prison. Credit too, the always reliable RKO art department for the work on the house. In the end, sub-standard work from the principals, who all have much better films to their credit. <br /><br />*½ out of 4
0	this film has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awful acting and if you can actually sit there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a 1 which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even worse at acting, every bit of the film is rubbish, i got this film on DVD without knowing what it was for the price of £1.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a complete waste of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are two things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it!
0	I quite enjoyed The Wrecking Crew (1999), which was the last of the three films in this series (the first being Urban Menace (1999) which I've yet to see). I know it was baaaaad, but the three leads did a pretty decent job, all things considered.<br /><br />This, however, was truly atrocious. Ice-T was dreadful, and he's the producer! Can't say I've ever heard of Silkk The Shocker (who apparently never learnt how to spell), but his performance was one of the worst I've ever seen in a movie.<br /><br />Miss Jones did pretty well in her small role, though she later went on to make some atrocious, racist "jokes" on her radio show after the SE Asian tsunami (plus other occasions sadly). Way to go, girl...<br /><br />No-one else comes out with any credit. Strangely, TJ Storm and Ernie Hudson (who are both pretty bad here) are far better in The Wrecking Crew, which was made, along with Urban Menace, at the same time as Corrupt. How that works, I don't know.<br /><br />I'm going to try the Ice-T commentary now, to see whether he apologises for the film, or tries to make us think it's a great piece of film-making.
0	The most positive points in this film were the credits (text style) and some moments in Ice-T's acting. The story-line; two rival gangs having to fight it out, with the sub-plots of betrayal, power and change are well worn plots but in this case painful(very) to wade through. The decrepit scenery, which added slight believability in places, and questionable lighting, constantly distracted from any interest/identification with the characters (the shine off of the actress's forehead/nose was blinding, not to mention other scenes with the same problem.) Not even half way into the film I wanted to know more about how and why it came about as opposed to what was going on on screen. A disappointment if you have seen Ice-T in other roles. Kudos to other actors/actresses who seemed to get into their roles despite the weak direction; Corrupt's side kick and the other restaurant worker.
0	I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.<br /><br />Nathaniel Purez
0	Seriously, I can't imagine how anyone could find a single flattering thing to say about this movie, much less find it in themselves to write the glowing compliments contained in this comment section. How many methamphetamines was Bogdonovitch on during the filming of this movie? Was he giving a bonus to the actor that spat his lines out with the most speed and least inflection or thought? The dialogue is bad, the plot atrocious, even for a "screwball" comedy, and claims that the movie is an homage to classic film comedy is about the most inane thing I've ever heard. The cinematography is below the quality and innovation of that exhibited by the worst made-for-TV movies, the acting is awful (although I get the feeling that the fault for that lies squarely in the lap of the director), and speaking of which, did I mention the direction is so haphazard and inscrutable that it defies the definition of the word? The whole thing is a terribly unfunny (even in the much-beleaguered world of so-bad-it's-funny clunkers), soul-sucking, waste of two hours of your life that you'll never get back. Be afraid, be very afraid...
0	Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.<br /><br />Through living in the past by telling other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same time.<br /><br />I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it's the only thing good about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor direction, or for just letting the cast put in such a hapless effort.<br /><br />In short, this movie was so boring, I could not even sleep through it! 1 out of 10 stars!
0	<br /><br />Never ever take a film just for its good looking title.<br /><br />Although it all starts well, the film suffers the same imperfections you see in B-films. Its like at a certain moment the writer does not any more how to end the film, so he ends it in a way nobody suspects it thinking this way he is ingenious.<br /><br />A film to be listed on top of the garbage list.<br /><br />
0	Four things intrigued me as to this film - firstly, it stars Carly Pope (of "Popular" fame), who is always a pleasure to watch. Secdonly, it features brilliant New Zealand actress Rena Owen. Thirdly, it is filmed in association with the New Zealand Film Commission. Fourthly, a friend recommended it to me. However, I was utterly disappointed. The whole storyline is absurd and complicated, with very little resolution. Pope's acting is fine, but Owen is unfortunately under-used. The other actors and actresses are all okay, but I am unfamiliar with them all. Aside from the nice riddles which are littered throughout the movie (and Pope and Owen), this film isn't very good. So the moral of the story is...don't watch it unless you really want to.
0	David Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said "hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!