darth_borehd

Archer is James Bond spy spoof like Get Smart but with NC-17 style humor. The main character is a narcissistic womanizing creep but he's not the only one in the show. The entire cast has various personality defects and addictions. Pretty much all of the characters have had some kind of sexual encounter with each other and none seem to really care for fellow human beings. A big part of the humor comes from some characters being morally outraged by the behavior of another while they hypocritically pursue their own selfish interests. What outrageously inappropriate thing will the characters do next? Even with that thin of a gimmick, it still has a lot of appeal. It *IS* genuinely funny, even if the gags do tend to get repetitive and wear thin. You just know that Archer is going to do something sexist and callous at the next turn, his mom is going to be snobby and comically conservative, his ex-girlfriend and fellow agent is going to be conniving and violent, and so on.

The writers seem to take delight in taking spy movie clichés and pouring in more ridiculously tongue-in-cheek sex and violence. Ah, the classic spy movie chase through the Alps with machine guns--hey let's make the love interest a 16 year old heiress who winds up topless while Archer blows up snowmobiles. Yeah.

Don't expect any good guys or family-friendly situations, but if you enjoy seeing adult humor in a cartoon more thoughtful than South Park, give Archer a try.

The movie is a take-off of Bing Crosby's and Bob Hope's "Road to . . . " series of movies. The two main characters do fairly good Crosby and Hope impressions with just enough of a twist to make it different.

The animation is fantastic. Wonderful fluid lines and bright colors make for a wonderful landscape. Occasionally they have "special effects" of computer animation. These scenes don't quite work so well, but fortunately, they last mere seconds and are few and far between.

It really is a great movie for the whole family. I've read other reviews that complain about nudity, foul language, and sexual scenes in this film. I want assure all parents out there are **no such scenes in this movie**. My family has watched this movie *dozens* of times with small children and nothing offended us *at all*. I can only guess that the other reviewers are vaguely remembering scenes and letting their adult imagination fill in things that never actually happened. If you stretch your imagination, you can see some puns and light double entendre for the adults, but I stress that they are *very* subtle and *way* over the heads of anybody under 12.

Their are some scary parts and some tense moments that our toddler jumped at, but nothing too bad.

The movie is filled with humor everywhere that will have everybody laughing. The main characters are thieves and con-artists, but they are the funny, kind hearted kind of rogues you've seen in many other movies.

Overall, I very much recommend it. There are so few movies that both adults and children of all ages will likely and the Road to El Dorado is one of them.

This film has delighted me since I first saw it in the theatres. I went back to see several times and bought the VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD copies as they came out. It was a delight to find my wife was also a rabid fan of Labyrinth as well and now our daughter delights in seeing it over and over again. David Bowie is mesmerising as the charismatic Goblin King. Jennifer Connelly graces the screen in one of her earliest roles. Jim Henson's creature creations flesh out a fantastic but strangely believable world. The characters Sarah meets on her adventures have captured the imaginations of millions of viewers. Fans still make tributes and recreations even over 20 years after its release and Labyrinth merchandise still sales in huge numbers. While it faired poorly financially when released, Labyrinth has shown that it was simply just ahead of its time. Its magic is still strong for people all over the world.

This is a breathtakingly wonderful family film--full of magic, fantasy, and touched by the whimsical genius of Jim Henson. I highly recommend it not only for fans of fantasy, but for anybody who is young at heart. I know of no one who has seen Labyrinth and ever regretted it.

OK, The concept sounds far-fetched--yet somehow it works! This movie has definite charm and appeal. It's obvious it was meant as a pilot for a TV series. If it had been picked up as such with the same cast and crew, it would have rivaled Remington Steele and the other mystery/action shows of the time. If you find this version, I very much recommend it to mystery and Sherlock Holmes fans. Beware of the remake though! This same script was remade with a different cast in 1993 and it totally flopped with same material. It just goes to show how important directing and casting are to making a good movie.

You can see the reviews of the 1993 version by going here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108117/

This version just doesn't work. The casting and directions are just too off to really get a connection with the viewer. The script and concept, however could work if given some decent production. In fact, it did six years earlier!

This 1993 made-for-TV movie was a remake of a 1987 made-for-TV movie. Obviously meant as a series pilot that just never took off. Even though the 1987 cast and crew did it much better, they decided to remake the same script. If you can find it somewhere, its definitely a must-see for mystery and Sherlock Holmes fans. Check it out at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093850/ Just forget about this 1993 version. It's painfully obvious they just couldn't get the same cast and crew that worked in '87 version.

This movie is an attempt by the clueless executives at Disney and the music recording studios to conscript Jim Henson's creations into a vehicle to promote their latest banal singer. It's obvious from the first scene as she breaks into her insipid solo number this is going to have a lot more about showcasing her so-called talents than anything fun with Muppets. My son informed me that she calls herself "Ashanti"--the latest mediocre offering from the record industry factories. Somebody had the asinine idea that she could act. Did they not notice that she has less acting ability than the average 3rd grader? If they did, I'm sure the phrase "It's for kids, so it won't matter" was used. Quentin Tarantino had an incomprehensible scene with Kermit the Frog that wasn't funny and may be frightening for some children. Some scenes from the L. Frank Baum novel cut from the Judy Garland movie were attempted. For example, each of the characters sees the wizard as something different (but with bad CGI). This might have been interesting if handled by a competent director but they were ruined here by idiotic poor implementation. The worst idea in this whole production is even having "Ashanti" in the same ZIP code as the movie, much less a starring role. In conclusion, if you love the Muppets, the works of L. Frank Baum, the Judy Garland Wizard of Oz or even Michael Jackson's The Wiz, AVOID THIS MOVIE. If you have any respect for Jim Henson and don't want to lose respect for Brian Henson, AVOID THIS MOVIE. If you like Quentin Tarantino, go get one of his other movies and AVOID THIS MOVIE. If you are looking for light family entertainment and have any sense of good taste, AVOID THIS MOVIE.

This is a very funny and warm-hearted movie from start to finish. Some friends found this on videotape several years ago and it's always been a favorite of every one I know. The faux documentary style is very funny and the main couple are very believable as two 20-30 aged people beginning a relationship and encountering each other's relatives and friends. As a comedy about dating, its a lot better than Meet the Parents and its sequel. There's a lot of gags and in-jokes that people of this generation will identify with (i.e. "It looks like something from Dune!").

I have no idea why some of the other reviewers gave it such bad marks. Everybody I know who has seen the movie has no idea why it wasn't a hit and hasn't appeared on DVD. I can only guess that maybe those not in their twenties during the 90's just can't identify with it.

Avoid this one like the plague. Everything about it is awful. Special effects are poor, the "Bibleman" character is a hypocritical creep, acting is abysmal, dialog is inane, plots are painful to follow, and the only lessons being taught here are how NOT to make children's entertainment. Just because a show is meant for children is not an excuse for it to be poor quality. I would not want my children learning anything from a guy who spouts bible verses while hurting people.

The only reason so many "Bibleman" episodes were made because some parents feel they need to get children's shows that are designed to teach Christian values and Bible verses. If you feel that way, then get "Veggie Tales" or other selections. Trust me, you don't want "Bibleman" in your house.

This was on the whole, an enjoyable fantasy movie. Players of the Dungeons & Dragons game will be pleased to find references to material from the game. Those unfamiliar with the game will still enjoy it as an action-oriented fantasy movie.

The drawbacks of this movie include a script that sometimes gets bogged down in melodrama, especially with the main villain's long-winded monologues about his evil plans (particularly at the beginning of the film). Other elements are campy, but done with enough tongue-in-cheek attitude to give me a chuckle or two. The movie also suffers from some minor sub-par theatrical production values. Since it was a direct-to-video/TV movie, these faults are largely forgivable. The most glaring examples are that some make-up work looks drawn in with marking pen and some monsters clearly look CGI. Special effects are about the same quality as the Hercules and Xena TV series, so I was still able to enjoy the movie despite these flaws.

Even with all of the above against it, the movie is still several times better from the theatrical Dungeons & Dragons movie that came before it. The producers wisely dumped all of the characters and plot except the bad guy's assistant, Profion, from the first movie; changed the setting; and conformed the fantasy world to be more in line with the latest version of the Dungeon & Dragons game. Those changes make for a movie that is light years ahead of the predecessor and much more enjoyable to watch.

The magic and monsters (especially the dragons) are fun to watch. The "rogue" of the party (an expert in disarming traps, picking locks, and other sneaky stuff) is the most interesting of the bunch. On the whole, I highly recommend Wrath of the Dragon God for anybody looking for a fun and enjoyable "B" fantasy movie.

This series illustrates the point that making a better product does not always guarantee success as the adage about the mousetrap goes. At least not in the world of 80's network TV. This show had excellent directing, acting, cinematography, writing, sets, and the coolest car on the airways. Sadly, due to fumbled advertising and a roving time slot, it just didn't make it. Or maybe audiences at the time just weren't ready for Stingray's intelligent and edgy direction and so passed it up for more down-to-Earth offerings. Whatever the reason for it's downfall, there were a lot of people hooked on the show. Many of my classmates liked it and each week's episode was the buzz of the school. Perhaps the Nielsen ratings messed up the numbers or maybe it just didn't sit well with the disposable income demographic.

I personally think this is a candidate for a DVD release and possible re-discovery. It was my favorite show when it was on the air

This movie is about a man who was persecuted and brutally punished for his religious and political beliefs. While the main character, Jesus Christ, obviously believes adamantly in his beliefs and which puts him at odds with the government and established religion of his time, his reasons for doing nothing to persuade others of the truth of his ideas, or even to dissuade them from punishing him, is a mystery. Several times during the film, we see the main character was given the opportunity to avoid punishment without admitting guilt or losing face, but he rejects them all and seems instead to seek out the brutality that is inflicted upon him. While it is sad to watch any human being punished simply for his beliefs, the Jesus character's strange behavior makes it hard to feel any sympathy towards him. The flashback scenes with his mother are the only times we began to feel any connection to the protagonist, but they are far too short and disconnected with the main plot to have much effect. I was left confused as to how this person came to believe the way he does so strongly. His beliefs are never fully explained so I was left with the impression that he was a deeply disturbed individual instead of a great religious crusader. The acting is passable but not great and the dialog seems like filler in between scenes of torture. While some parts of the movie had promise, particularly the cinematography, it falls short of its apparent goal of fostering an appreciation and understanding of why this man chose to endure the horrible tortures inflicted upon him. Only when viewed through a lens of preconceived notions about the character, such as a viewer's own religious beliefs about Jesus, could there be enough subtext to feel an emotional bond with the character and to have insight into his motivations. On its own merits, this movie is neither well made nor inspiring. 2 stars for cinematography only.

Don't be fooled by the provocative title and the R-rating, this film has only implied sex and only the briefest nudity. Rather, it is a thought-provoking but odd piece of work that delves into the meaning of relationships between men and women, the need to experience life's pain along with pleasures, and the different roles that we play to survive in society. The film is about a scientist who creates three computer generated/robotic duplicates of her own self. The duplicates exist in a virtual reality "safe" from the harm that the real world can levy on them. As the film progresses, we see through the interactions with the main character that they have become her alter egos. Trouble brews when they start to become self-aware and want more freedom. As I watched the film I was surprised by the apparent low budget it was made with but how it outshines most big-budget Hollywood blockbusters in its depth and scope. The acting is OK but amateurish, with occasional bad timing and wooden responses. The dialogue seems to get a little too long and pretentious at times and you have to be very attentive to catch the double entendres and metaphors in order to keep up with the script. Despite all this, it was a very good movie that proves that there is under-appreciated talent out there that Hollywood refuses to acknowledge. People that liked films like Slaughterhouse-5, Orlando, or the Handmaid's Tale would be advised to give this film a try.

The movie traces the rise and fall of Caligula, the last real emperor of the united Roman Empire; before the military took over the government and instituted a line of puppet rulers.

Nothing is held back in showing the moral decay and decadence of the final days of the empire. Because of this, there are very few people who will not find at least some part of the movie offensive. While the attempt at realism is admirable, it makes it difficult for some viewers to look past the offense to their personal sensibilities and appreciate the film as a whole.

The movie has a lot of big names stars, but strangely it is a relative unknown, Theresa Ann Savoy, as Caligula's sister that provides the best performance. Malcom McDowell, John Gielguld, and Peter O'Toole present performances that are fine, but far from their best.

The film does seem to lack anything resembling a plot. Instead of a cohesive story, the characters move from one unrelated scene to the next. The movie is more akin to a voyeuristic view into Roman life as it was during this period of time.

The sets and the atmosphere, however, are excellent. "Caligula" presents the best vision of the opulence and decadence of Rome since Fellini's Satyricon. While some viewers have criticised the movie as exaggerating the concept of Roman orgies, one should remember that "Caligula" takes place during the fall of Rome, where the power of the Emperor and nobility had reached the epitome of corruption. The days when Rome was a center of scientific and philosophical advancement had long disappeared by the time Caligula comes to power. During this time intellectuals and dissidents were slaughtered, the nobility had given up any appearance of proprietary, apathy ran through the citizenry like a plague, the military assumed more and more power, and celebrations and orgies were held constantly in a vain attempt to stave off rebellion. Because the strength of the movie is in its ostentatious depiction, I suggest watching the long version (the short version just doesn't convey the intended vision strongly enough).

While not everybody can appreciate the movie, I would recommend it to any student of Roman history or afficionado of film techniques.

Even 3 years after it's release, this is still my favorite first person game and my favorite Star Wars game. Nothing else has captured the feel of being a lightsaber-wielding Jedi in the Star Wars universe as well as this game has. While the engine is a little dated, most people will find the graphics still look good (in 1024X768 mode) and the gameplay is very well done. Numerous add-ons and skin packs greatly enhance the fun of gameplay.

One of the biggest complaints about the game is the limited multi-player options. The only kind of multi-player game seems to be a deathmatch where players try to kill each other the most number of times. While that is fun for a while, it quickly gets dull.

The only other problem I have is that the cut-scene videos in the single player game could have been made better. The soundtrack seems to be a second or two off with the lips of the actors and the acting in general is very amateur. At the time the game was made, however, video game cut-scenes were still fairly new and not perfected yet, so I let some of these faults slide.

Overall, the game is excellent and I highly recommend this title to any Star Wars fan. I just wish a sequel would come out with an updated game engine.

Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama tries hard to be a spoof of cheesy horror movies, but it falls far short of it's goal. It unsuccessfully tries to cover up it's own shortcomings as part of the humor with dull results. The gags are uninspired and recycled from other horror movie spoofs and the "talent" just can't make up for it. This comedy-horror fails as both comedy and as horror.