Same old film in a new location
353110
As far as movies and their box office records go these days, Salman Khan seems to be competing with only himself. Since `Wanted', each one of his film have made more money than the previous one. As entertainers these work big time because Salman has carved a niche for himself and caters to only his select audience because he knows them well. In Dabanng, he does more of the same as he tries to put a fresh face to a sequel that was a game changing film for him.
A few things have changed since the last film, the original director Abinav Kashyap declined to do the film and Arbaaz Khan became the director. However as a new director he does not bring a fresh perspective because this sequel is nearly identical to the first film, just the setting has changed from Lucknow to Kanpur. The first fight was in a warehouse in the original film and in the sequel as well. The Dabanng song, has nearly identical dance steps. The mandatory shirtless fight scene. Even Munni makes an appearance. The sameness to the original film is in every frame.
Chulbul Pandey (Salman Khan) is relocates to take charge of Bajariya Police Station in the city of Kanpur. Pretty soon Chulbul locks horn with the bully, Bachcha Bhaiyya (Prakash Raj) and his two brothers - Chunni (Nikitin Dheer) and Gainda (Deepak Dobriyal). These confrontations come to a head when Salman kills Gainda at a wedding ( amazing sceene)
The fight scenes are amazing especially the scene at the truck stop. The scenes between Salman and Sonakshi are identical to the first film and so is the song in Dubai. Chulbul's scenes with his father (Vinod Khanna) and brother Makkhi (Arbaaz Khan) are pleasant. If you don't like Salman you won't like the film because this movie was designed to reassert his dominant position at the domestic box office. So the director takes the original film and makes some minor tweaks, but taking care to highlight Salman in every frame. I was expecting great stuff from Prakash Raj, the villain but he is feeble and scowls more than he does anything. I also failed to recognize his voice- was it dubbed?
If you don't like Salman stay away from the film, but if you do then this is a very entertaining film. If it had a well written script and dialogues, it could have been a far more awesome film.
I thought the film was just ok, for fans of Salman though this is a five star experience. 4 stars. 12/21/2012
3691972
"The Invasion," starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, is the fourth in the quasi-franchise based on Jack Finney's 1955 novel "The Body Snatchers" about an alien invasion where people die and their bodies become pod-versions of their former selves. The entries in the series are as follows:

- "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956) - "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978) - "Body Snatchers" (1993) - "The Invasion" (2007)

The first one is in Black & White and is probably too dated and tame for most modern viewers, but it's still worthwhile; it takes place in small town, California. The 1978 sequel switches the setting to the big city of San Francisco. The 1993 sequel switches to an army base in the deep south. And this 2007 version switches back to the big city of Washington DC (shot in DC, Baltimore and Los Angeles).

I prefer the 1993 film, followed by the original, and then the 1978 version and this one. What I like about "Body Snatchers" is the cast and the setting; the Army base naturally makes it easier for the alien imitations to go undetected. Unfortunately, "Body Snatchers" bombed at the box office and so did this one.

Although I like Daniel Craig, I'm not big on Kidman; I can take her or, more likely, leave her. Those who are Kidman fans will appreciate this entry more than me. It's not bad; it's got some creepy moments and quite a bit of action, particularly car chases, but the story's too city-bound for my tastes and filmmakers take the safe route with the horror, unlike the other versions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. Why should every film end on an ultra-downer note? I respect this different approach.

The film runs 99 minutes.

GRADE: C+
3032900
Decent film but lacks the charm and budget of Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. It has the distinct feel of a made for TV production even though it was a theatrical release. This was a Brittish, not a Hollywood, production; so perhaps that has something to do with it. Maybe it is unfair to compare the two films but in reality what I wanted was a worthy sequal with the same charm and tone of that first film and this film, while it tries, misses. The plot moves a bit slowly and the underwater sequences, at least on my home theatre, are very dark and murky (perhaps it's the print as the trailer actually looks better than the film). Robert Ryan as Nemo doesn't do much in the role. Chuck Conners is wooden but it seems as though the role was written that way. Overall it could have been much better but it isn't bad unless you compare this film to it's predecessor.
2179472
Seemingly inspired by the success of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Boogie-Nights/dp/B000PAAJZ6/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Boogie Nights</a>, Rated-X is the "true story" of the porn producing Mitchell brothers, following their rise and (drug-induced) fall from X-rated filmmaking success.

Rated-X is set mostly in San Francisco during the 1970s and 1980s. However, this low-budget made-for-cable TV movie (Showtime) was shot in Canada. The film suffers as a result. When you try and recapture an era -- the mood of a particular time and place -- it helps to include iconic, or at least authentic, locations in your film. (I mean, in addition to the stock footage establishing shots.) But the Canadian streets and buildings in Rated-X look dull and nondescript. (Well, they couldn't very well include memorable Canadian streets and buildings.)

Compare the Canadian "San Francisco" in Rated-X to the real San Francisco in&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Milk/dp/B001QUF3SW/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Milk</a>. Or to the real L.A. in Boogie Nights. You'll see how authentic locations can strengthen a film's atmosphere and story.

Apart from the unconvincing locales, I didn't find Rated-X's story to be particularly interesting, nor its characters emotionally engaging. They held my interest in a cursory sense (i.e., as long as it was already playing, I might as well watch). But the film was not particularly memorable, despite all the sex and drugs, the betrayals and violence.

Granted, I mainly got this film because Canadian actress Nicole de Boer was in it, and I admired her in&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Cube/dp/6305238065/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Cube</a>&nbsp;(one of the most original horror films of the 1990s -- don't bother with the sequels). de Boer has but a small role in Rated-X, her character flatly-written and uninteresting.
4922509
It seems that not even Oliver Stone cares about Oliver Stone movies anymore, as he has done his best to make a Guy Ritchie film, here set in SoCal instead of Soho.  But other than that, it all feels very familiar.  Stories like this have been done before and done better.  The film making isn't bad and there are memorable scenes, but everything about "Savages" is sort of "eh," at times compelling (usually the violence) but often laughably dumb.  And the attempt at a Postmodern ending is just lame.
4180073
This DVD is just the (also utterly pointless) re-release from 2005 with "Best Sellers" slapped onto the cover. The re-release I'm talking about contains the same exact transfer as the 1999 Special Edition DVD. It's non-anamorphic, just like the SE, and contains the same extras that you can find on the SE, which were ported from the 25th anniversary laserdisc.

My advice to fans of this film: Try to find the original 1999 special edition DVD.
3295877
This movie followed the same basic idea from the first film, and it's acknowledged from the beginning. Not great but not terrible there are some funny moments as well as some college flashbacks.
232200
Yet another remake of an iconic horror classic, this 2009 remake has the same production team and director behind the 2003 remake of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-2-Disc-Ultimate-Edition/dp/B000FS9FE4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2-Disc Ultimate Edition)</a>. However, this remake also has Sean S. Cunningham, director of the 1980-original as producer; a good sign. This remake fails to deliver anything we haven't seen before and some of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but luckily there's just enough to almost redeem it.

The film opens on Friday the 13th of June, the same day the original film take's place. In this opening scene, a young Jason watches a scared teenager decapitate his mother.

Next, it's present day and a group of young kids wander the woods near Crystal Lake. Twenty-three minutes later, we meet a whole new set of college kids on the way to a cabin near Crystal Lake. Meanwhile, a young man named Clay Miller (Jared Padalecki) searches for his sister, who went missing six weeks earlier. The town bordering Crystal Lake consists of the same crazy redneck's that we saw in the TCM remake. All are unpleasant, paranoid, and tend to give main characters vague warnings about Jason, while doing nothing about it.

I don't see director Marcus Nispel being big on ideas, as I'm sure his influence went into creating the townsfolk. This film also shares a very similar visual style with TCM, as well as having the cheap scares that populated that film.

Friday the 13th isn't much different from most recent horror films. It has plenty of gratuitous nudity and violence. This doesn't bother me, but this movie gives "gratuitous" a whole meaning, believe me. It also has two character's that serve as comic relief (in this case, Aaron Yoo and Arlen Escarpeta), but I actually welcomed them.

There is some good in this remake, extending beyond creative death scenes. First of all, Jason looks more frightening than he ever has before. The makeup and costume design are top notch, but actor Derek Mears brings physical movement and posturing to the performance which really adds to the effect. Furthermore, the script makes Jason human rather than some supernatural being. This is good, but the writers stopped short at any attempt to explore the character's psyche. Finally, it has a genuinely likable protagonist in Padalecki.

There's almost no room for originality in the horror genre anymore. Sequels, remakes, and rip-offs are essentially what rules it now. Friday the 13th does not bring anything new to the table, but taken on it's own merit it's not that bad. It's much better than the dreadful&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Jason-X-New-Line-Platinum-Series/dp/B00006FI0R/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Jason X (New Line Platinum Series)</a>&nbsp;and the disappointing&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Freddy-vs-Jason-New-Line-Platinum-Series/dp/B0000VCZMK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Freddy vs. Jason (New Line Platinum Series)</a>. While those who've had their fill of Jason at this point will want to steer clear of this movie, it's actually better than quite a bit of the horror films that are released today. If you don't mind being entertained by something you've seen before, Friday the 13th isn't the worst way to waste your time.

GRADE: B
4813252
I bought this DVD for a friend whose old video tape was wearing thin. I had seen the film but was delighted to see it again. Yes it is alike in feel to other films set in Italy in a different time, but it stands alone with yet another take on people from different yet seemingly similar backgrounds brought together for a short time.
618838
I will say this - the film did inspire me to read the original five books which, despite their tendancy to lengthy pontifications, are still fun to read and full of surprises, as well as some unavoidable cliches.

As a sci-fi channel mini-series, it would have worked well if the studio had chosen to follow the novels and the original story, They did not. It used elements from the first two books, but the only characters who remained intact from the original were Alice, Sam, Lev, Gwenafra, and the alien Monat, though he is more or less combined with Joe Miller, the lovable hulk who follows Sam loyally through most of the series.

However, being a 90-minute TV production, it seems to have been clearly intended as a series pilot.  For a continuous series of adventures, the cast of new characters would have been the most workable.  They would not have been tied to the existing story line in quite the same way, and after all, in the Riverworld, everyone (and I do mean everyone) is there, so any characters can exist.

This film seemed to try having it both ways: new characters as well as old, a different story set within the same premise.  Sam Clemens was a lot more likable than his book counterpart, as was the alien, Monat.  But there were a number of things that I personlly found very bothersome.  First of all, instead of all of the human race being resurrected simultaneously, the citizens of Riverworld seem to be arriving in waves every few years.  There were also horses, which did not exist in the Riverworld at all.  The grail canisters were a disappointment because in the books they provided not only clothing, but fine, full meals instead of the icky green-and-yellow strips of what looked like epoxy ribbons!  But the most annoying part of all was the arrival of the Emperor Nero.  He was a substitute for other characters in the books, probably because he was better known to most of the audience.  But even so, this Nero had nothing whatsoever to do with the real Nero of history, and one of the more interesting things about farmer's books was his knowledge of the historical characters he portrayed.

The film is a mixed bag.  It is enjoyable and fun on one level, but unsatisfactory on another.  Best advice is to enjoy the film first, then read the books.
3720791
It is just refreshing to watch a film that is completely different from the usual. So are so many remakes and retakes on past films that it seems like Hollywood is always playing it too safe. This movie is fresh and does what a film should do "entertain you".
3087027
The film was old and the negatives came out poorly so as did the prints. I guess that's why you cant find it in camera stores!.
2320767
It was about ten years ago that I first watched Mel Brooks' "Dracula: Dead And Loving It" and I found it not as funny as I expected from the director of "Young Frankenstein." Since then Mel Brooks, it seems, stopped directing films, which is a sad thing if it is true, but anyway I decided to watch his "Dracula" again after a decade. The only part I thought funny ten years ago was the scene where Steven Weber's character drives a stake into poor, lovely un-dead Lucy's heart, but is this film really so unfunny?

Sorry if you're an avid Mel Brooks fan, but I had the same impression as before after the second viewing - actors all are doing a good job, but the gags are repetitious and too mild, neither big, clever nor outrageous enough to make me laugh. The storyline itself follows that of Bela Lugosi's 1931 version with numerous references to other new and old Dracula films. They are fine, but Count Dracula (Leslie Nielsen) appears twice with a Gary Oldman-like hairdo while once is enough. Anne Bancroft appears as "Madame Ouspenskaya" prophesying with a strange voice one too many time.

At times, I suspect that Mel Brooks is really trying to make a horror, not a comedy here, for at certain points the film looks as if it stopped being a spoof. I had the same kind of feeling when I saw Eddie Murphy's "Vampire in Brooklyn" which also fails to strike the right mood throughout. Technically speaking, "Dracula: Dead And Loving It" is surprisingly good - see the dancing party scene, for instance - but the whole events there are just bland. Count Dracula dances gracefully, and then he escapes breaking the window. Nothing great, funny or otherwise, happens here just like the rest of the film itself.

All the cast including Leslie Nielsen with his silly antics are amusing to see, but there is not much else in "Dracula: Dead And Loving It.
2494804
The first film was great, and it was funny.  This film was almost a repeat of the first film and not as funny.  I'm glad I didn't go to the movies to see this film.
4666539
This is Exactly like Moby Dick. only the difference is they are chasing after a ship and not a whale. hello, a big lacking in originality bit time.
I was disappointed, like watching a movie for the second time.
if you saw the most recent Moby Dick movie. Don't rent this unless you want a repeat of the same old same old..
3221457
Remakes have recently faced a rather explosive trend on the movie front.  Studios have remade numerous Asian films such as The Ring (2002), Dark Water (2005), and Shall We Dance (2004).  All of these have had some financial success, as have many European remakes.  Meanwhile, sequels try to follow up on the success of their predecessor, but most often fail to live up to the quality of the initial film.  Yet, they often make enough noise to make a sure buck or two.  Thus, making a sequel that almost feels like a remake while viewing it should be a sure financial success.  However, whether it has any cinematic value is a completely different question.  Single White Female 2: The Psycho presents a meager cinematic experience with a resounding echo, which might turn some heads due to its title.

Single White Female 2 presents another of many fruitless and unimaginative films released that blatantly uses a title that will attract some viewer's attention.  The attention is all that this film seeks, as it might trap a few audience members in order to secure enough profit.  Nonetheless, the story follows a concept that Fatal Attraction (1987) exposed through a bloodthirsty mistress. Later in Basic Instinct (1992), a female psychopath emerges through the combination of sex and independence while the nanny goes postal in The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (1992).  Single White Female (1992) continued this psychopathic female trend by adding the twist through the acquisition of a roommate, which caused additional fear in many viewers.  Meanwhile in 2005, Single White Female 2 only refurbishes the old idea of the psychopathic feminine power with newer and younger women with an exquisiteness that many men will ogle.  However, all other aspects of the film go far below the quality of the original film and many other films in the category.

The story opens with a shot of a little girl discovering a woman in a bathtub with cut wrists (I only wish it did not look like ketchup dripping from the wrist.)  I assume the director, Keith Samples, tries to evoke some deeper meaning in this scene where the audience should draw inferences to a disturbing childhood.  The problem with this scene is that it forgets to point the audience in a direction, which coerces the audience to retreat to previous experiences with similar themes and stories.  However, the title Single White Female 2: The Psycho has already functioned as an obvious reminder to what the scene intends to suggest.  The film continues to exploit trendy pop-psychology through secretive items hidden away in cellars, locked suitcases, and sadomasochistic occurrences (Barbet Schroeder, the director of the original film, directed Matresse (1976), which gives a far better look on the world of sadomasochism.)

Consequently, the story follows a predictable path where two competitive women in their mid-20s clash together, as the borders between the personal, professional, and sex diffuse.  This conflict leads the story's red headed protagonist, Holly, to seek a new home with a friendly and understanding woman.  However, Holly slowly begins to realize that there is something strange and bizarre about the woman from whom she rents a room, as the woman begins to borrow her clothes, color her hair like Holly, and have an uneven temperament.  Eventually the film comes to the part that everyone is waiting for-the shinny kitchen knife and the demented woman's inability to deal with rejection and separation.

Single White Female 2: The Psycho only has one thing that might keep some men's attention - beautiful women.  Besides this trite exploitation of beauty, there is not much substance that would develop much entertainment, suspense, or contemplation, as this sequel most likely feels like a clumsy copy of the original film.  Unfortunately films such as this one do instigate the notion of poor filmmaking, and an opportunity wasted on potential talent.
3812014
I saw this movie on late night TV once. A tale of witches and a curse,  set in The Phillipines, with Tom Selleck wearing Lacoste shirts. Very 1970's,Interesting looking actresses. Quite low key. This is like an old TV episode of "Night Gallery".It is even centered around a painting like the "Night Gallery" episodes always were. Just a little more "adult"(there is a scene or two of bare breasts).If you like Tom Selleck and you liked him in "Magnum  P.I." then you should like him in this. Even  though this is about 10 years before "Magnum" he looks and acts pretty much the same. He is even investigating the aforementioned painting. He has had that moustache a long time.  This movie  worked for me on a cross marketing basis. So impressed was I with Tom's Lacoste shirts that I went out and bought a couple in his colours. This film does have a twist ending. You may or may not see it coming. Overall,just a very mediocre film. More like a 70's TV movie.