Kreme

Don't listen to all the hate out there for this movie. Is it the classic that the 1984 movie is? No, but then neither was it in 1984.

This is a worthy remake with a lot of humor and its own story. The leads are great without being copies of the original team and the cameos are just perfect, not too much, not too little. Lots and lots of references to the original film, of course. Worth seeing it again just to try to catch the ones I missed the first time. I also liked the tow or three oblique asides to the coordinated attack on this movie from misogynists online; subtle, but amusing.

For little kids, the ghosts are pretty scary.

Predictable, unimaginative, boring, and just dumb. It was very difficult to sit through this film, and even the kids hated it. High production values and good 3D animation don't count for anything with a story as dull as this one.

There are a lot of 'jokes' in the movie that feel like they came out of one of those 1970s Hannah-Babara cartoons.

The "action" sequences—and there are many of them—are long, loud, and still very dull because they are entirely predictable, even down to the final, predictable and forced 'joke' at the end. One follows upon the other with a very thin sheen of story to connect them.

Easily in the class of worst movies ever made, Birdemic has obsoletely nothing to recommend it other than a hilarious send-up of it by the folks at Rifftrax. The acting is horrible, the script is a mess of confusion, the directing is worse, and the special effects look like they were done by an 8yo on an old Quadra 660av. The movie lacks all the charm of something like Plan 9 From Outer Space and fits in well with dreck like Manos The Hand of Fate.

If at all possible, avoid seeing this film. Drive many miles out of your way if need be.

Even if you like bad movies in general, this movie will test your limits.

This isn't a great movie. Maybe it's not even a very good movie, but it sure was fun to watch. Sure, it's a little silly and it's got way too many product placements, especially for one particular Chinese computer company, but the relationship between the principles feels real and is paced well. Sure, you know where the film's going front he very beginning, but it doesn't feel forced at any point.

If you're up for a light-hearted bit of romantic comedy fluff in Chinese, then you aren't going to be disappointed.

If you're expecting a movie about China or Chinese culture then you're likely or be disappointed. This movie could as easily have been set in Chicago or Berlin and not changed a single aspect of the film.

There are occasional glimmers of hope in this movie; split seconds in which if you watch closely you may see that there was a movie here, somewhere, wrying to get out. These are just glimmers though. The script is awful, the pacing is just dreadful. The acting is pedestrian. What you're left with is a whole lot of nothing.

And to make it worse, if that is even possible, the movie doesn't even deliver on being a fun popcorn-fest. There's no believable chemistry between the main characters, and I kept expecting that the whole "romance" was an elaborate setup; that would at least have provided some interest in the final act.

As it is, the movie meanders from implausible to silly to down-right absurd without ever striking any sort of balance. The movie could have easily gone down a comedic farce path, and that would probably have been much better. As it is, it simply has no qualities to recommend it.

I saw this movie the weekend it came out, and I've seen it maybe a half-dozen times since, most recently with my eldest son.

The movie was very good when I first saw it, but remarkably it has held up very well and even gotten better. The performances are excellent, the script is perfect, and quite a lot of this film, like other John Hughes films, has entered the culture.

But beyond the comedy this is a good coming-of-age story with fine performance not just from the main stars, but from all the supporting players as well. Who can forget, for example, Charlie Sheen's marvelous cameo?

This movie from 1966 has what is in my opinion the very best dogfight sequences ever filmed. It's absolutely thrilling to watch the flight sequences in this movie and then compare them to movies with much larger special effects budgets (and Computers!) like the Star Wars movies or Top Gun. The effects are all real planes and the camera work is so impressive it is easy to forget that there's no CGI.

Despite being over 40 years old, this movie holds up very well with very good performances from Peppard, Andress, and Mason in particular and a very strong turn by Carl Schell, Maximilian Schell's brother as The Red Baron.

[ This is based on the non-US 101 minute release ]

Babylon AD takes place in a near future that reminds the viewer of an Eastern European version of Bladerunner, only without the rain. The future of 2030 (or so) is grimy and multi-cultural and violent.

The basic story takes a little from the aforementioned Bladerunner,a little from Children of Men, a little from Road Warrior, a little from Transporter, and mixes in a little of its own to come up with a complete package that is rather appealing in its vision and its execution. In short, it's a much better film than I was expecting based on the reviews of the 90 minute US release.

That said, it's not that good a movie. It's pleasant and entertaining and there are some elements in it that really work well, but as a whole it feels like its just an action movie where it could have been quite a bit more.

Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore have a wonderful chemistry in this movie, and the movie works perfectly as a romantic comedy and a period film.

The soundtrack is a pretty much a soundtrack of what must have been Sandler's senior year of high school. Also, the soundtrack is appropriately broad, not focusing on a few bands, or even a particular genre, but rather the mishmash of everything from top-40 to light hard rock that a lot of people in 1985 were listening to.

Sure, the movie is predictable in the way that all romantic comedies are, but the getting to the predictable ending is a good ride.

This movie looks far too much like Nightmare Before Christmas. The King looks like a cheap knock-off of the Mayor, even. Kids will enjoy it (even my 6yo liked it, but not enough to watch it again) even if some of the themes are a little dark.

The trouble is, it's hard to get past the fact that this feels like a rip-off. John Cleese is great, but in it far too little. Even the few Frankenstein/Young Frankenstein references aren't enough to save the movie.

I'm not sure who the movie was directed at, it doesn't really seem to speak to young kids, pre-teens, teens, or adults.

Really lousy animation (I mean, really really lousy, many scenes show static cutouts moving across the screen, and even the cgi stuff is exceedingly poor).

The story is compressed and makes little sense to someone not very familiar with the book. The voice work is nothing special, but the thing that really sets this film apart is just how bad the animation is.

I can only think that this film was made because some contract required it to be made, much like the 1980's Fantastic Four movie.

If you have the chance to buy it, don't. Even your kids will be disappointed.

Children of Men, based on the PD James dystopic book is simply the best movie of the year, and there is nothing wrong with it, nothing. Every performance is exactly right; measured and precise and just quite amazing. Clive Owen, of course, is perfect as the disillusioned former militant who is dragged into a plot that has, quite literary, the future of the human race at risk.

The direction is Cuarón's best to date and both Julianne Moore and Michael Caine turn in two of the best, albeit short, supporting roles of the year. Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity, Inside Man) is also strong in a smaller supporting role.

This movie has deep political roots, and is especially appropriate in the US with all the anti- immigrant fervor being stirred up by the Republican Party. Watch it once for the story, once for the politics, and once for the soundtrack.

The soundtrack is of special note because it is stunning in its quality and variety.

There have been many many versions of Dicken's holiday tale, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to chose one above the rest. However, this is certainly among the best versions.

Patrick Stewart is an ideal Scrooge, and Richard E Grant couldn't possibly be better as Cratchet, but the real gem in this production is Joel Grey as the Ghost of Christmas Past.

There are some remarkably creepy portions, so young children may find this version a bit too frightening.

The only drawback to this version, and it is very slight, is that it was made for TV, so there are some slightly awkward breaks where commercials were.

There are parts of Tom Yum Goong (or, as we like to call it, WHERE'S MY ELEPHANT) that amateurish and distracting; especially in some of the camera work and editing. However, those are but minor nit picks in a movie that has some of the best fight sequences I've seen. One, in particular, stands out as it involves a continuous tracking shot of a huge mêlée involving a 4 or 5 story building and a long staircase that winds up all the floors. The entire sequence is one shot, with no cuts or edits. It's worth watching the movie through again just for that sequence.

The story is pretty basic, but really, what at we going to see? This is no Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but it doesn't aim to be. The story is adequate to get you from one sequence to the next.

Tony Jaa is outstanding. His skills in the fight scenes are particularly astonishing given the overall lack of editing in these sequences. He's obviously doing all these things himself, and mostly in real time.

One minor note that I found amusing, though it might only be funny to fans of the movie BABE, the name of the production company is "Baa-Ram-Ewe"

OK, so Birth of a Nation is a technical marvel. I will grant that. it is wonderfully shot, and it is stunning to think this movie is 90 years old, and only post-dates the end of the Civil War by 50 years. There are many things int his movie that had never been done before.

But it all goes pear-shaped when you actually watch it. It is, in a word, disgusting. Vile would be another word. The depiction of the slave-owners of the South as easy-going gentle people who merely took care of their happy slaves is an insult, not just to all blacks, to to any person with any sense of morals or decency.

I cannot in good conscience give this movie any other score than a 1, no more than I would give a well acted and well directed movie glorifying pedophiles a high score. Would that it were possible to give two separate scores.

Certainly it is a movie that should be seen by students of film, but the subject matter is so distasteful that it will be difficult for anyone to stomach.

This TV movie (supposed to be a series) is nothing more than an attempt at propaganda fear-mongering. It is offensively stupid. I can't believe the network didn't pick it up, considering the subject matter, but the fact that no one watched it gives some glimmer of hope for American Television.

Avoid watching this 'movie' if at all possible. The poor excuse for a plot, the stilted acting, the lousy directing... they all add up to something as base as anything I've ever seen on television. It would be easy to believe the idea for this series came straight from the White House Press Office, and it's hard to conceive how anyone who was not a complete lackey to the current administration could sit though this.

In a Decade of some very bad movies, quite possibly the worst

The fact that anyone out there can give this steaming pile of rancid celluloid a positive review is baffling. This movie was criminal when it was released, and is only worse as time goes by. Peter Frampton can't act, and neither can the Gibbs. The plot is insipid, the covers of The Beatles songs are insultingly bad, and the whole thing stinks from beginning to end.

OK, I liked Earth Wind and Fire and this is Steve Martin's first movie, and a lot of the people in the background are famous. But there's still nothing to recommend it to anyone. "Steaming pile of rancid celluloid" by be too kind.

To paraphrase Monty Python, "This is not a film for viewing, this is a film for lying down and avoiding." Stay away from this film. Far far away. If you're looking for something bad from 1978 you'd find better acting, plotting, and comedy in ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES.

The source of the song "White Christmas" would be worth watching just for that, but in addition the movie has a bunch of wonderful dancing, and quite a lot of charming songs; "I'll Capture Your Heart Singing", "Come To Holiday Inn", "You're Easy to Dance With", "Oh How I Hate to Get up in the morning", "White Christmas", and "Happy Holiday" (all by Irving Berlin) are some of the highlights.

Anyone who is a fan of Crosby or Astaire will enjoy this movie. Marjorie Reynolds and Virginia Dale play perfect foils for Crosby and Astaire, supporting them.

The plot, what there is of it, is just enough to hang enough Muscial numbers on to keep the movie running along apace.

Porky's is no ANIMAL HOUSE or FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, but then again, what is? Still, it has one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in film. The 'Lassie' scene? No. The 'shower' scene? Nope. The scene following the shower scene, featuring the coaches and the school principal discussing the possibilities of a 'line up' is still hilarious.

The comedy is raunchy, that's true. The 'plot' is simplistic, sure. The acting is passable, but nothing remarkable, OK. But it is funny, and it is still a lot of fun 20 years later. And, of course, it spawned a thousand imitators and two sequels. None quite capture the original's humor and somewhat innocent raunchiness.

Keep an eye out for Kim Catrell in an early role as "Lassie"

This is a bad, bad, bad movie. Everything abut it is bad, from the pathetic acting tot he horrid directing, tot eh VHS quality of the film itself to the nonsensical attempt at a plot. It is difficult to imagine anyone spending money to make this.

It is, in fact, so bad that it lacks even the amusing badness of such dreadful classics like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE. In fact, even MST3K's treatment of this film couldn't make it even mildly interesting.

This is a movie that is trying. Very trying. OK, now that that is out of the way, there are attempts of humor here, but never is the attempt successful. George Hamilton, in the dual role of Don Diego and his long lost brother, Bunny is a not funny joke. Even the few attempts at some racy adult-oriented sex jokes fall completely flat.

How bad is it? Do you remember the pathetic Smokey and the Bandit rip-off/spinoff "Smokey Bites the Dust" also from 1981? that's a better movie in all ways except for the quality of the production itself. Z, tGB certainly had some money thrown at it, and even some talented actors. Too bad they didn't spend any money on writers.

This is a bad, bad, bad movie. Everything abut it is bad, from the pathetic acting tot he horrid directing, tot eh VHS quality of the film itself to the nonsensical attempt at a plot. It is difficult to imagine anyone spending money to make this.

It is, in fact, so bad that it lacks even the amusing badness of such dreadful classics like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE. In fact, even MST3K's treatment of this film couldn't make it even mildly interesting.

Every episode of Coupling (22 to date) has been a brilliant gem showing just what is possible when you start with the assumption that your audience has an IQ higher than paste and is comprised of adults. The show is wickedly funny, occasionally profane, and smartly written the writers (and their cast) never back down.

One can only hope that the intelligence of the show is not totally destroyed by NBC's remake, although home seems faint.

Blade 2 is exactly what you expect it to be, a fast paced fast action loud soundtrack "kick ass" type of movie. A worthy follow up to the original. A popcorn film with just enough story and character to keep you going for the few seconds of film there isn't some wicked fighting on screen.

Popcorn B-movie of the best kind. The action flows, most the plot points make enough sense, and it stays quite close to its internal mythos. Not a lot more you can ask, is there?

It's no Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but then it doesn't aspire to be, It is what it is and what it is is fun.

Kevin Smith has made two wonderful films (Clerks, Dogma) and two simply above-average movies (Mallrats, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back). Chasing Amy, while fitting into the whole Jersey Films story line, is a film quite unlike the others.

Chasing Amy is, simply, a movie about the barriers that exist between people that prevent them from ending up with a happily-ever-after. At its core, the film is about the relationships we form and how those relationships fail. It is not just about the relationship between Ben Afflack and Joey Lauren Adams (both of whom are marvelous on screen), but about the futility of "Chasing Amy," a phantom who simply doesn't exist. She is the bunch of grapes above Tantalus's head. "Amy" is the goal that is forever out of reach.

The beauty of Chasing Amy is that somehow this is a hopeful message.

It's silly to rank this film amongst the other Jersey films it is simply too different. Of Smith's films though it is right with Dogma as the most enjoyable.