ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Stanjaudit This movie may not be realistic to some reviewers but some folks are just to critical and can't enjoy the professional actions of actors. These people do take pride in their profession contrary to what some folk may think. In today's environment we do have women going into direct combat, albeit in support positions as they drive support trucks in convoy. However, those trucks come under attack by small arms fire or IEDs ( Improvised Explosive Devise). These IEDs kill or wound independently regardless of sex, age or rank. So lay of the actors in this movie. They are doing there best to give you some entertainment. My son was a ranger and it was difficult training just as any of our secure fighting forces whether it be seals, delta force, or marine re-con. So just enjoy a movie and lay off the actors, the directors, technicians and others it takes to make a movie.

wayfarer4 Okay, yes, this wasn't exactly a high power movie. My impression is that this was originally considered as an answer to G.I. Jane, but with the star power in a strange side story that really had little to do with the main character, other than adding a love interest and some mental anguish.The fight scenes are fairly contrived, true. The degree of realism is less than believable. And if you can distract an Army Ranger from his assigned guard duty with a cable hack of "Dirty Dancing", then our military is in serious danger. And, if the military (at the supposed time of the movie) hasn't trained any female Rangers, then where did we get the female drill sergeant that runs them through the training? On the other hand, this is a movie with Michael Biehn and Adrian Paul that didn't get any coverage in movie trailers, and is likely only to be shown on the late late night movie when the regularly scheduled Brian Bosworth movie doesn't show up. If you're a fan of either of these actors, and are only looking for a movie with the two of them, then this isn't so terrible. I got my copy from a used book store, and have to agree that it was the cover that got my attention. Both Biehn and Paul have the best scenes and dialogs out of the cast. (If nothing else, Paul's pick-up line involving "Mr. Happy" is one of his better moments.) It does play shamelessly with bits from other movies, including what appears to be a co-ed shower that almost smacks of the "Starship Troopers" scene.I would have to say that this isn't the worst movie I've seen. See this movie with an open mind and a willing suspension of disbelief. Or, find yourself a good movie editing system, and remove all other sections of the movie that don't involve Biehn and Paul. It will probably make about the same amount of sense.

Tin Man-5 "Dead Men Can't Dance" is a film that relies heavily on other films, interweaving plot conflicts and cliches that we've seen a million times before into one motion picture. However, the ones they use to combine work nicely: A small all-women platoon fights its way through Vietnam, trying to figure out which among them are spies and which in the government are the villians working alongside the enemy. Sure, we've seen it all before, but in order for a film like this to work, it must take the cliches seriously and make sure they flow and interlap smoothly. This film does that, and it knows how to make them work. After all, this is a movie trying to be an action flick, not a serious approach to the Vietnam War. The cast is generally good- Michael Biehn, Mark Edward Anderson, and Adrian Paul stand out as the men trying to lead the women to victory, and most of the women, played by a bunch of unknowns, are well played. Its almost as if all the actors know that their characters are paper-thin and designed to be cardboard cutouts, and they choose to have fun with it. This factor helps tremendously.However, despite these pluses, the film as a whole is extremely poor. The camera work is shoddy, and the production values are terrible. It looks as if it was filmed with a cam corder most of the time, and the synthesizer music only adds to its cheeziness. Some directors can hide a low budget (1993's "Fortress" is a good example). This guy, however, cannot. The results are an impressive, if overused, plot with lousy details around it. And if you don't have the visuals mastered in war films, you don't have anything.*1/2 out of ****

Kaymarie I wanted so much to like a movie staring my two favorite actors--Adrian Paul and Michael Biehn. I'm not your crazed fan type. . .but somehow these two men have stuck in my imagination. Both have (for the most part) appeared in works with good scripts and intelligent characters.Why this turkey? The story line-- women saving a male black ops team in Korea-- was painful. The film looked as if it had been shot with an old 8mm on a budget of $1.95.I hope my favorite guys had a good time or got paid a lot of money. It was painful to watch.