Oh yes, Adeona!! I watched that movie last year, and it became one of my favorite movies too!! It's very moving and well done; I cried a whole lot. When you think about it, it seems boring, because nothing much is happening, but it's SO sweet.

I just saw "Night At The Museum" (the first one) again. I haven't seen it in a couple years and I laughed out loud all over again
Ben Stiller is hilarious, and while I have not seen him in much, he does a great job as Larry in this movie
and of course there's Perfrencesco Favino who plays Christopher Columbus! it's so cool that they got him because he could speak real Italian!

I watched I Am Number 4 last night with some friends. I really liked it. The plot was a little cliched but I don't mind that too much.

I must say, I have never seen a movie that was so set up for sequels. The whole ending just screamed "If this does well, we're making more!!"

.

But still, I liked it. It was a fun, clean movie.

Here's another one I viewed recently on my quest to watch all the bad movies I can.

Baby Geniuses (1999) #68 on imdb's Worst Ever Movies List: Before I even get started I must admit that this was a painful film to watch. In a nutshell this goofy film, which has a surprisingly star studded cast, including Kathleen Turner, Christopher Lloyd, Peter MacNichol, Kim Cattrall, and Dom Delouise, among others, achieved new heights in cinematic pain.

The gist of the film, my friends, is this. Kathleen Turner plays some megalomaniacal baby researcher person who is convinced that babies know the secrets of the universe until they turn age 2 and then they forget about it and move on. She's also convinced that babies speak their own coherent language amongst each other and spends a considerable sum of money to set up a foundation with the sole purpose of cracking this baby code, if you will. Christopher Lloyd is the head scientist there. Well, turns out there's truth to this. The foundation settles on 5 baby geniuses (hence the name of the movie) to research. One of them, Sly (short for Sylvester) is an escape artist who knows martial arts and is constantly trying to leave the place and evade Turner's goons. Sly's got a twin brother named Whit who was separated at birth and now resides with a pair of goofball parents (MacNichol and Cattrall) who run a baby daycare by day, baby research by night establishment of some sort. Apparently the parents that drop their kids off at this place during the day don't mind that Peter MacNichol is running experiments on them, albeit relatively harmless ones. Still, when my kid eventually comes along I'm not signing them up for research experiments involving goofy parent/doctors, beekers, and computer generated algorithms...I just want someone to watch them, you know? At any rate Sly escapes and manages to get switched with twin brother Whit at the mall. Turner's goons take Whit back to the baby genius emporium and Sly goes to live with the goofball parents.

What a weird little movie...the biggest problem I have with Baby Geniuses is it simply doesn't know what audience it wants to cater to. One could reason that this film is for little kids, and this would be the logical conclusion given the subject matter. But the film has profanity (not in abundance, but enough there to let you know it's not a kids movie) and even a couple of innappropriate moments, one involving Sly. So then it must be meant for older kids...but that doesn't make any sense either, because no kid past age 10 is going to want to watch a movie about babies or else they'll get pounded on by the school bully (and with good reason, I think). By the same token it's not really meant completely for adults either...for starters the humor is very largely unfunny (the supporting cast, including Delouise, are just patently unfunny in a movie that desperately needs their experience in providing humor) with only the very occasional chuckle provided by Sly, who is a mischievous little runt with a penchant for getting into adult situations even though he's only 2. So because of this identity crisis the movie just bombs fantastically across the board. I mean Look Who's Talking at least knew that it was marketed for an adult audience and was genuinely funny but this two hour cinematic torture device is unclear on so many levels. I'm amazed they actually came out with a sequel! Still, I have seen worse films. 1 1/2 stars out of 5. Amazingly no Razzie Awards. Weird, eh?

You can remove Baby Geniuses from my Netflix playlist, but you can never remove the soiled diaper sized blot it left on my soul.

Shadowlander,
and that movie has a sequel....
I remember I saw the original when it released, it was quite some years ago so I was much younger than I am now, but older than 10. There were aspects I thought were great, I love when Taco's Put it on the Ritz comes on, with Bee Gee's Stayin' Alive- though those scenes don't look as good today. The movie as a whole I did not like.

PS.

no kid past age 10 is going to want to watch a movie about babies or else they'll get pounded on by the school bully (and with good reason, I think).

There is no good reason for such behavior.
But I know what you're trying to say.

and that movie has a sequel....

*shields his eyes*

There were aspects I thought were great, I love when Taco's Put it on the Ritz comes on, with Bee Gee's Stayin' Alive- though those scenes don't look as good today. The movie as a whole I did not like.

There were a couple of funny moments and that was one such, but the vast majority of the film was strikingly unfunny. There was the one moment that made me truly cringe in my seat where there was innuendo talk between two of the babies which probably would have been more appalling but for the fact that the whole movie is pretty appalling. *shields his eyes*

There is no good reason for such behavior. But I know what you're trying to say.

Thanks. I'm not advocating any such thing since I was on the receiving end of it quite a bit growing up. I guess it'd be like...*thinks*...I don't know...walking in on a pro wrestler and discovering him listening to Air Supply and clutching a box of Kleenex. It'd just be embarrassing all around.

I've got two more bad movies to add later this weekend, both B-movies of incredible badness/goodness. I love old B movies...they're like super bad movies with huge aspirations, which only make them more loveable.

I watched the original Highlander (1986) today. It stars Christopher Lambert in the title role, along with Sean Connery as his mentor and Clancy Brown as the antagonist.

It's a bit dated in terms of special effects and has that '80s look' but one of its strengths is in the period flashbacks to different times in the hero's past (this was especially well done in the TV spinoff series of this movie).

It's kind of a cult classic that led to a couple TV series and several other movies (that had to alter the universe a bit, as this movie's ending wasn't sequel-friendly). I found the idea of the Immortals - people who cannot die under normal means, and must fight each other because "in the end there can be only one" - interesting.

But what really caught my attention in this viewing was its attention to a philosophical point: that being immortal (here on earth) is not only a boon, but a curse, for should you ever care about other people, you'll see them grow old and die before your eyes, over and over again, all while you yourself don't age. (This was also addressed in the TV spinoff, and to a lesser degree in the animated Gargoyles with its immortal adversary to the clan). Give a listen to the surprisingly-orchestral and melancholy Queen song Who Wants to Live Forever? for a taste of this.

It is rated R, primarily for plenty of violence (lots of sword fighting and things blowing up), some occasional language and other objectionable scenes, and is not for everyone (actually, I prefer the TV series. ).

Speaking of memorable Highlander music, the series and later movies made good use of the beautiful traditional Irish lament Bonny Portmore.

I watched Passage to India last night; and I didn't like it. I found the acting rather weak, I dislike the story line (yes, I know it was originally a book), and it's unresolved ending very much annoyed me. It always does. I definitely wouldn't watch it again, and wouldn't recommend it.

I watched the original Highlander (1986) today. It stars Christopher Lambert in the title role, along with Sean Connery as his mentor and Clancy Brown as the antagonist.

What a great movie that was! "There can be only one!". It's probably a little aged by today's standards and I remember it being a little slow to get into when I first saw it in the very early 90's but then the movie picks up and takes off and is a great ride all the rest of the way. And Clancy Brown is good at playing bad guys. But all that said I don't think the movie would have been nearly as good as it was without Connery in it. Ramirez was so popular they brought him back for the 2nd one, which while understandable is most definitely one of the things that reeked about the 2nd one (ironically Connery was one of the precious few bright points in Part II). Hey, that gives me an idea...I might have to review Highlander II now...thanks!

And now to continue with my Horrible Movies of the World reviews...

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living And Became Mixed Up Zombies!!? (1964) Ranked #60 on imdb's Worst Movies Ever list - What a strange little film this was! Written and directed by B-movie legend Ray Dennis Steckler (who also starred in the lead role) this movie is purportedly about a man's downward spiral over the course of 24 hours as he becomes the unwitting and then unwilling accomplice of a gypsy fortune teller at a carnival with aspirations to rule the carnival...I guess. It sounds weird and it is weird, trust me. Steckler (under the pseudonym "Cash Flagg" in this film) has a girlfriend and a best buddy and they all hit the carnival one night for a few kicks. After getting their fortune told by Madame Estrella, a weird gypsy fortune teller a strange series of events starts to unfold in which Flagg finds himself having terrible dreams in which he's committing murders. It turns out the dreams are real and Madame Estrella has put him under some kind of trance and is having him go around and whack out (in Mafia terminology) her competitors at the fair. Or something. The titular zombies don't even make an appearance until the last 10 minutes of the movie and when they do they're not even Romero-esque zombies but...well...kinda mixed up. Hey, truth in advertising, right? Also there's a slew of musical numbers and apparently Steckler intended for this film to be a musical of some type (yes, I am serious). The acting is kinda hammy and the sound is so terrible that it sounds like the production crew was using microphones that had been left on a park bench for a month during rainy season, so I had a hard time hearing what was going on in the first place. This film was very wretched, but still I've seen worse. 1.5 stars out of 5.

Cave Dwellers, aka "The Blade Master", aka "Ator L'invincible 2" (1984) Ranked #45 on imdb's worst ever movies list - This is a sequel to an earlier film, and before I go any further I must inform you that the version I watched was the Mystery Science Theater 3000 one, and so while I have watched the movie (several times, admittedly ) it is with a comedic accompaniment of whipcrack commentary and jokes. Cave Dwellers began life as an Italian "sword and sandal" film which sprung to life during the Conan the Barbarian craze of the early 80's. Miles O'Keefe headlines as Ator, a burly Conan-lite guy who runs around righting wrongs and ends up on a quest to secure the release of his former mentor Akronas from a very wimpy and mustachioed bad guy named Zor. In the mix is some weird device called the Geometric Nucleus, which is supposed to endow upon its holder ultimate power over the world. So Ator (O'Keefe) travels to the rescue and encounters a number of obstacles on his quest to rescue Akronas, among them the Cave Dwellers of the title, which turn out to be a bunch of cannibalistic cave men of some type. In fact I'm not even sure why they were even in the film other than to provide what I'm sure they thought was a snappy title. The film is infamous for its plot holes, inconsistencies, and just outright strange dialogue. And poor Miles O'Keefe is stuck in the middle of the whole thing.

The film is definitely among some of the worst movies I've ever seen, and would probably be unwatchable without the MST3K treatment. The movie is just one enormous anachronism at times though and that makes it enjoyable as bad as it is. 1.5 stars out of 5.

Looking forward to more!

I recently watched Ever After (recently as in, last night) and Val asked me to post my thoughts in this thread, so here I am.

Ever After has been a movie I've wanted to see for a while, but I wasn't sure if I would like it. Overall, it was a good movie, but there are some parts I did like and some that I didn't. My opinions are rather mixed, so I'll do the best I can to make sense.

This was the first movie I'd seen with Drew Barrymore in it, which was kind of a new experience. She's not really one of my favorite actresses. For some reason, whether it's because of the acting or the way her character was written, I didn't like Danielle too much. She wasn't bad, but there were some things that annoyed me about her, most noticeably in the way she delivered her lines. In my opinion, I just couldn't relate to her as much, and it seemed to me that her character lacked a certain depth that I like to see in movies.

I felt the same way about Prince Henry, though I really liked his character arc. When he first came on screen, I really, really did not like him. I think that's probably because his character arc was arrogance. I don't think I was supposed to like him at first. At the end, I think he was definitely very likable, and I liked how his character transformed.

I really did like the story in general though. I love the visual pictures the movie gave, such as close to the end where

. The costumes were very well-done as well, and the step-sisters and Baroness looked appropriately ridiculous.

Another highlight of the film for me was Gustaf (sp?). Yes, I know he was a minor character, but it's the minor characters that I am endeared to more often than not. He was so awkward and hilarious, and one of Danielle's only friends. I loved him and I wish he had more screentime.

There were so many funny moments in the movie that I found myself laughing out loud more than I usually do with a movie. The scene where

was hilarious. And some of the witty one-liners were perfectly timed. I appreciate a movie that can make me laugh, and this was no exception.

I absolutely loved the cinematography. As I've dabbled in cinematography before, that was one of the aspects that made me love this film, especially in the opening credits. The cinematography of any film, while not noticeable, makes the movie come alive, and that's what I felt was done with Ever After.

Yes, there were some parts that annoyed me, but isn't that the way it is with all movies? All in all, it was a very good retelling and I did like it.

Thanks for posting your thoughts, Mountie!

I haven't seen Ever After in AGES and really should rewatch it, as I loved it when I was younger. My whole family likes it too, even my Dad who likes making jokes about the stepmother/sisters while watching The Baroness is definetly my most favorite character. She's got some GREAT lines and is properly horrid. Angelina (I think that was the name of the elder sister??) is pretty great too, the scene where she starts freaking out in front of the queen when she realizes that her stepsister, "cinderella", is going with the Prince, then covers it up by announcing "There was a bee" is priceless.
I think my favorite line in the film though is by the Baroness...she does this weird hand movement and says to a servant "Go...catch a chicken or something!" (makes more sense when you see it )

I really like Gustav too, I wanted her to end up with him And I'm not very much a fan of Prince Henry, I thought him much too old and rather boring looking. Then again, I was only 13 when I first saw it, so he probably WOULD have looked old. I should see it again, see if I find him any better looking

EDIT:

After a length chat conversation with Mountie and Shadowlander (I wish you could "tag" people in posts like you can on FB ) about what movie I should rent when I went to the movie store tonight, I thought I'd post here. Since I'm supposedly doing "IMDB's Top 250" (SL doing IMDB's worst, and narnian1 doing Oscar winners), I chose one from that section:

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

I've heard rave reviews about this 80's cult classic about a highschool senior who fakes sick and skips school for the day, grabbing his friend's father's ferrari, finangling his girlfriend out of class, and then riding into the city where he gets them into a super posh restuarent for lunch, great seats for a baseball game, a art musuem, and more...all while almost being noticed by his doting Dad who works in the same city and keeps running into the son who he believes is still lying in his bedroom at death's door. (whew that was a long sentence)

Anyway, back at school, Ferris' sister, Jean, is super annoyed that her brother skips school so easily and gets everything he wants handed to him on a platter by a school who is obsessed with him---all that is except the principal, Mr. Rooney, who has a vendetta against Ferris and is determined to catch him once and for all--he's SURE Ferris' isn't really sick, but Ferris manages to keep one step ahead of him in the game to catch him.

In a sequence of scenes that made me ROFL (good thing I wasn't eating or drinking!), Rooney takes a drive out to Ferris' place, sure he'll find him there, not sick. Battling locked doors, mud-holes, and a ferocious dog, Rooney finally gets his break when Ferris' sister comes home to yell at her brother. The principal sneaks in while Jean discovers Ferris isn't there either...then comes back downstairs to be confronted by Rooney---covered in mud and dog bites. She delivers a few good kicks that knock him out for a while so she can telephone the police.

Anyway. I don't want to spoil the whole movie but I just saw it so I felt like writing up a little description I'd highly reccomend it. The acting was perfect, it wasn't tooooo "80's", and it had a bit more depth then I was expecting.

Well, I guess it's time to enter the fray of movie talk again. Yay!

Well, recently (or somewhat recently) I ventured into the Horror genre and watched three very different scary flicks. Two zombie movies and a genetically mutated creature feature. Guess which one I like the most?

O.K, now for the reviews:
------------------------------

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

O.K, I'll start off by saying I blame my older cousin and our very own Shadowlander for getting me curious about zombie films.

So, this is the first undead film I've ever seen and... it's O.K. *dodges dismembered limbs from the Romero fan club section* It was way more goofy than I expected and well, not very creepy. Tom Savini's gore effects were good, but not the stuff of legend that most make it out to be.

Now, before anyone attacks me for saying this, let me just say that I do know my special effects history... sortof. I know that "back in the day" they did not have the technology of today, that one should rate the visuals based on what was around at that time, etc etc. Still, the gore effects were just kind of a let down. I'm not one for gore, really, but after hearing so much about this film, it just didn't live up to the hype.

All other aspects of the film were good, but still not great. So, decent but not the masterpiece most say it is. Sorry! 2 1/2 out of 5

The Beyond (1981)

Oh... my... word! This is a little Italian gore-fest that I caught via TCM latenight. It's a really strange film that has basically no real plot and seems to just exist to allow for really gory death scenes. Did I mention this was gory?

Despite being turned off by a lot of gore, I for some reason stayed and watched the whole film. But man, is this gory! Just a sampling of what's in here: a guys eye being popped out, acid eating away a face, a girls face getting blown off and a swarm of spiders eating a guy. All shown in gruesome detail.

I've got to hand it to the VFX guys though, it all looks REALLY good... er, well done. While most American films were just getting into the practical effects revolution, the Italians had already gotten halfway to the finish line.

I guess this could be recommended to gore hounds and those that like zombies (this is a zombie movie, after all), but overall I'd recommend just staying away from this film. Weird, depressing and gory. Did I mention this was gory? 1 1/2 out of 5

Mimic (1997)

O.K, a movie I actually LOVED on this list!

This was one of the early films by Guillermo del Toro (Pans Labyrinth) and is a personal favorite of mine. I've always been a fan of Sci-fi/horror/monster movies and Mimic is a near perfect modern creature feature.

I won't ruin the plot for possible viewers, but the gist is that genetically engineered insects run amok in New York City sewers. Even though it sounds silly, it's actually very well done. The film contains action, humor, horror, cool creatures and interesting characters. It's also very well directed.

Overall, a very creepy and fun film that I would recommend to anyone 17 and up. The only objectionable content is cursing and some creature violence. Recommended! 4 out of 5
------------------------

So, yeah. I have now come the realization that I despise zombie movies. That is one genre I just can't get into... sorry Warrior and Shadow.

One thing about Ferris Bueller's Day Off there's a lot of, um, well, crude humor in it. And a lot of language. When I saw it the first time I was still a young teenager and most of it went over my head. But I remember thinking that it wasn't very funny and my dad had to skip a few parts. It was rated PG-13 in the 80's so you know that means something. So it's not for just anyone.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

Hmm... there are some sexual references in the movie - sure. There's a reasonable bit of language too but it's fairly mild. Not one for children but hardly the Adults Only title you're making it out to be.

I didn't mean it like that. I just don't want someone to just read Val's review that mentions none of that stuff and think it's an okay movie to watch with the family or something like that. I just like people to know both the pros and cons before I recommend a movie to just anyone.

There is an F-word and sexual references and I know there are many on this site who are sensitive to such things. That's why I mentioned them. But I always tell people to "look it up" when I recommend a movie, so they can discern for themselves whether or not it's something they feel comfortable watching.

P.S."Brooklyn!"