12-year-old Henry Rowengartner, whose late father was a minor league baseball player, grew up dreaming of playing baseball, despite his physical shortcomings. After Henry's arm is broken while trying to catch a baseball at school, the tendon in that arm heals too tightly, allowing Henry to throw pitches that are as fast as 103 mph. Henry is spotted at nearby Wrigley Field by Larry "Fish" Fisher, the general manager of the struggling Chicago Cubs, after Henry throws an opponent's home-run ball all the way from the outfield bleachers back to the catcher, and it seems that Henry may be the pitcher that team owner Bob Carson has been praying for.
When an accident miraculously gives a boy an incredibly powerful pitching arm, the Chicago Cubs sign 12-year-old Little League player Henry to a contract, which helps lead them to the World Series. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jeffrey M (it) wrote: Possibly the worst movie I've seen in a long long time.
Lisa L (fr) wrote: Was forced to put a star .. Was gonna give it a zero ..
Ashley H (kr) wrote: This movie is stupid, pathetic, terrible, and hilarious...the plot is dumb, its acting is horrendous, and it should be considered a comedy, not horror.. its full of break dancing zombies, hilarious screaming cops, and a girl that technically has sex with her two year old dead son... wow!
James C (ag) wrote: It took forever for this film to find it's way to the U.S. DVD market but thankfully it did. It was a lot of fun. The action was great and so were the locales and the performances. And another wonderful score by Alexandre Desplat. Hopefully the sequel will eventually find its way here soon.
Amy H (fr) wrote: Original. Good acting and plenty of gore and scary parts.
John P (au) wrote: This is Little House on the Praire vs Mormons. I think I'd rather keep watching reruns of Laura Ingalls fighting with Nellie Olson instead. An entertaining film but disturbing. I don't actually believe the Christians were that gullible and nor do I believe the Mormons had such a violent doctrine. There are extremists in every religious facet, even Christianity. Do your own research and your own conclusions. After all, this was part of history I never had heard of.
Mohamed A (ca) wrote: The plot picks up crime novelist Catherine Tramell years (fourteen to be exact) after her San Francisco police troubles. Relocated to London, she gets implicated in the car crash death of her soccer player lover (she, of course, was driving). Enter police psychologist Dr. Michael Glass to assess her mental state, and the sexually oriented dangers from the first movie get recycled in this story. People start to get murdered. Inevitably, Glass gets painted into a corner, while Catherine keeps one step ahead of everyone else. It seems beside the point that Sharon Stone looks great for 47, though there is a surgical aura about her beauty (whether or not this is the case). Her nihilistic character has not been empowered by the intervening years but flattened into a one-note Machiavellian nymphomaniac, all knowing looks and come-ons with nary a trace of humanity. The fun in her performance has been deflated to fit the constant contrivances of the plot turns.She gets no help from her pasty-looking leading man, David Morrissey, who looks and sounds like the younger brother of Liam Neeson. He lacks the charisma and primal instincts to get away with Glass' quicksilver changes in behavior, especially in the sex scenes. The most inspired in-joke is placing the doctor's office in London's phallic-looking Swiss Re building. It seems a shame to recruit two world-class actors in supporting roles only to waste them " David Thewlis plays the suspicious police inspector, and Charlotte Rampling, looking spectacular at sixty (and a lesson in humility for Ms.Stone), as Glass' more seasoned colleague. Suffice it to say that the last five minutes are absurd to the extreme with no sense of viewer satisfaction over the conclusion.The journey from theaters to DVD has been an unsurprisingly fast one, and the disc includes Caton-Jones' rather bored commentary on an alternative track, and there are several deleted scenes all wisely excised. In fact, not enough was excised for my taste. There is also a disposable ten-minute making-of featurette where there is mention (or dare I say, the threat) of a "Basic Instinct 3". Perhaps they can get Dakota Fanning for the role.
Lucas B (gb) wrote: This film was awesome!
Mitydot4u (ru) wrote: This was a strange but intriguing movie.
Kimberly Y (jp) wrote: not as good as the first
HungYa L (de) wrote: It may be an average love story but the time travel makes it all cool.
Mau R (ca) wrote: Maybe too simple? Or the cultural difference too much?
Brandon V (br) wrote: Did Stuart Little watch the towers go down?