You, the Living (2007)

Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.

But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians.

I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely.

The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.


I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.

You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.

I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better.


Its a shame she didn't get screen credit , she by far did the best job in the film has the girl on the cross , best part of the movie .She had much more impact than Avril , or just about anyone else in the film . She almost made S/M look like fun ! She really was believable has the S/M model that gets scared of her situation . Although they seem to really have messed up that sort of dreamy feeling of looking for the bad guy , Those sets were very well built but they just sort of skimmed the surface of what was shot . This is one film were both cuts should be made available. It seems they left out a lot of what was shot , and almost all of the really dark stuff that would have made the film much more demented . Its kind of like they stopped short of the mark they were going for during filming . What was shot would not have gotten a R rating probably a NC-17 or X , but that is what it would have needed to make the film they way it should have been .


I think Samuel Goldwyn was trying to accomplish two things in this film. First the film is a homage to Jascha Heifetz, considered to be the best violin virtuoso of the past century. Secondly having brought to the screen the Dead End kids with his film of the same title and seeing them sign with Warner Brothers, he was trying to create a second gang of appealing urchins.

Though the film was good there certainly was no demand that the kids from this film be reteamed for another feature.

Leader of the gang is Gene Reynolds who at one time played the violin, but now leads a street gang of disreputable urchins. His stepfather, Arthur Hohl, breaks the violin his late father gave young Reynolds and threatens to send him to reform school over the feeble protests of his mother Marjorie Main.

Young Reynolds happens to stumble onto a music school run by the old music maestro himself, Walter Brennan and his daughter Andrea Leeds. They take him in, but they have their financial problems with a lot of creditors led by Porter Hall.

This film is mostly to be seen today because it's a chance for classical music lovers to see and hear Jascha Heifetz who as you gather is the solution one way or another to everybody's problems. Joel McCrea is in this film also, but has a rather colorless part as Andrea Leeds boyfriend.

Besides Heifetz, one thing the film does do is touch on, albeit gingerly on the topic of child abuse and battered spouses. Arthur Hohl is one mean man and Marjorie Main is very clearly a much battered wife.

The kids in the cast do well, Reynolds, Tommy Kelly, Terry Kilburn and a young girl under the name of Jacqueline Nash who grew up and performed as Gale Sherwood, nightclub partner to Nelson Eddy. She had a nice soprano even as a child.

But it's Heifetz you see the show for.


I have never seen anything as awful as this movie for quite some time. The movie was boring, long long and awful plot. The special effects sucks like hell - It's like watching a movie back in 1999. It's a total waste of an hour and a half of my time. Matthew Settle's performance was quite bad. I saw him in Band of Brothers playing Lt.Speirs, he wasn't THAT bad. In fact not bad at all. But in this film, his acting wasn't convincing enough, it was quite bad and there wasn't any chemistry between the rest of the crew either. Plus, his eyes seems empty like he's not feeling it. It surprised me, really, because he was good in Band of Brothers.

Anyway, don't even bother to watch this movie. It's a big big BIG waste of time. Even if you had to kill an hour or two, get something else to do besides watching this movie. Trust me, you'll regret it!


I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100 times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now it is a classic!!!!


This movie is really not all that bad. But then again, this movie genre is right down my alley. Sure, the sets are cheap, but they really did decent with what they had.

If you like cheap, futuristic, post-apocalyptic B movies, then you'll love this one!! I sure did!


I really enjoyed Girl Fight. It something I could watch over and over again. The acting was Fantastic and i thought Michelle Rodriguez did a good job in the film. Very convincing might I say. The movie is showing how women should stand up for what they want to do in life. She had so much compassion and yet so much hate at the same time. Dealing with a ignorant dad didn't really help her much. Even though he loved her he was really hateful. Her mother died when she was younger and that also put some sadness in the role. The love story was a part that i really enjoyed in the movie also. I felt the passion the y had for one another. Then again drama sets in and then its like she is choosing between her boyfriend and her life long dream. I thought it ended just right. It was the kind of ending where you have to decide what happened in the future for them.For all you people who likes a movie based on a sport with a good plot i 'd suggest that you check this one out


I don't really know when it was that TV stations began preferring to have handsome men as their reporters - regardless of the mens' IQs - but it was clearly a problem by the time that 'Broadcast News' came out, and the movie does a really good job looking at it. Portraying a love triangle between pretty boy air-head reporter Tom Grunick (William Hurt), intelligent but nervous reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks) and producer Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the movie pulls no punches. Probably the best line in the movie is when Tom says something like: 'I don't really understand any of what I'm reporting.' And in the era of FOX News and such things, a movie like this becomes even more important.

All in all, definitely a movie that I recommend. Also starring Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role as the anchorman.


One of the all-time great science fiction works, as visionary and thought-provoking as Blade Runner or even Gilliam's own Brazil. Willis gives his best performance here, but he's outdone by Pitt's incredibly frenetic turn that's unlike anything he's done before or since. Even Stowe isn't out of her league here, though. The story is very layered and offers quite a lot to think about. The climactic scene is beautifully magnificent, and the last lines fit perfectly. The scenes in the mental hospital are creepy and yet so funny in their own way. Lots of dark humour on display here. Fantastic production design and suitably bizarre cinematography. In my top ten.


The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer).


Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.

The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. 'An American in Paris' is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.

8/10


Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX (1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael Ballhaus and the wonderful 'Albatross' by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!!


I am a Christian and I say this movie had terrible acting, unreal situations and a completely facade front for Christianity. You might as well watch 'Remember the Titans' and at least not mix Christ in a football film like a formulaic steroid for losers. Let me make some really pressing comments of what bothered me in this film.

1. The school was in Georgia and was a white academy school. I did not notice a single black student or player in the school. I deal with the White 'Christian' Academies in the south and they were built for no other reason than to reestablish segregation. This is troubling when the movie is about Christianity and Christ changing lives...how about changing the hearts of segregation? (note: I loved the token black coach; like it made up for the entirely white team and all the black 'Giants' players.)

2. The uncritical acclaim by everyone Christian about this movie. Can I get a couple people to say that it was bad acting, bad filming, bad writing and in short poor compared to other movies. If we were to compare this to another football movie, would it have the same charisma and energy?

3. The half-baked Christianity which was shown made even less sense to me than the unrealistic ending. If Christianity is about simply reading a little scripture and praying to begin a complete life change, then don't wonder when no one will listen to what Christians have to say. We want to sell Christ as a cure-all. He doesn't need sold and He doesn't need to be attached to such whimsical lifestyles. No wonder everyone considers Christianity to be anti-intellectual with this unreal presentation.

I recognize this film may be inspirational to a few people. To most, it will not be. It will not give a real picture of struggle and heartfelt tension. Most importantly to me, it is not Christian by any means or stretch. It has values but it falls short as a 'pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' message as shallow as positive thinking. If you live alongside people who struggle and/or those in third world living conditions, this movie will be hollow as most churches are today in their religion.


I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased 'For The Birds' won the Oscar in 2002 for 'Best Animated Short,' not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.

The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.

As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.


Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.

The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.

Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.


Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. 'The next Jane Campion', they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)

Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:

(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.

(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.

(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.

(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.

(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.


Even though there's a repertoire of over 180 films to choose from, this 'Succubus' is often named as THE best Jess Franco film. Heck, even the legendary filmmaker Fritz Lang counts 'Succubus' among his personal favorites. So, maybe it's me but I thought this was a dreadfully boring and overly confusing movie. The opening is great, though, and shows Janine Reynaud performing an SM act on stage. It's all downhill from here, unfortunately. Reynaud's character is a maneater who eventually kills her lovers in some sort of trance. Franco had a decent budget to work with and spends it well on nice locations, beautiful photography and a mesmerizing musical score. This COULD have been his greatest film indeed, if it wasn't for the lame and uninteresting story. It's supposed to be psychedelic but I'd say sophomoric is a better term to describe what's shown here. Half of the time, you don't have a clue what's going on or what exactly is said so even the short running time of 80 minutes seems to last ages. This most certainly isn't Franco's best film according to me. I wouldn't even recommend it to die-hard exploitation fans. If you're looking for more superior Jess Franco film, try to get your hands on 'Las Vampiras', 'The awful Dr. Orloff' or 'Female Vampire'.


DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...

Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.

Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?

Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.

DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still...


Every James Bond movie has its own set of rules. Just like every Indiana Jones movie has ITS own set of rules. And the fact that screenwriters don't break these rules maintains the integrity of the characters. With a completely unnecessary plot twist, the integrity of both Ocean films plummets somewhere between Airplane 2 and a Roadrunner cartoon.

Imagine what would happen, while teetering on the rope bridge outside of the Temple of Doom, if Indy told Shorty and Willie not to worry because throughout the entire first two movies he's secretly had super powers and can fly them both to safety.

Entertaining? Sure, for a Roadrunner cartoon. But Spielberg would never have done that because it would have destroyed the integrity of the film. More importantly, it would have ANGERED the audience. They'd already sat on the edge of their seats through 3 hours worth of Indiana Jones movies and they were counting on Indiana to get them off that bridge in a believable way. If he were to fly off? People would have walked out of the theaters the same way people did during Ocean's 12.

SPOILERS

1. Julia Roberts'character, Tess, infiltrates a museum by disguising herself as...Julia Roberts?!? A clever twist? By breaking the fourth wall three hours after we've been introduced to these characters? Is this the Naked Gun 33 and 1/3? It's a textbook example of how a cheap laugh can ruin an entire film. But wait...just in case you haven't walked out yet...

2. The suspense builds throughout the last hour of the movie -- how will they pull off the heist -- there are only 10...8...5...2 DAYS LEFT! And then in the last 12 minutes of the film, the ONLY entertaining part of this movie, we see that the heist was made days earlier and took Matt Damon all of 30 seconds to pull off. The past 10 days? A complete waste of your time.

BACK TO INDIANA JONES ON THE ROPE BRIDGE...'Just relax, Willie! I stole the REAL stones back about a month ago! Besides, I convinced them you were Kate Capshaw!'

If you haven't already seen it, cut your losses and go see the Polar Express. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but there really is a Santa Claus. Most importantly, you won't feel cheated leaving the theater.


Every once in a while, Eddie Murphy will surprise you.

In a movie like 'the Golden Child', especially. This is a movie you'd figure would star maybe Harrison Ford or Kurt Russell or someone. But Eddie really does work; he's smart, he's funny, he's brave, kind, courteous, thrifty, clean and everything else a hero should be.

Having been chosen to secure a mystic child who holds the key to protecting the world from complete evil (embodied perfectly by Dance), Eddie goes from California, to Nepal and back, all while the beautiful Kee Nang (Lewis) wonders if he's all he says he is and a crazy old holy man (Wong, perfect as always) knows that he is.

It's exciting, breathtaking in spots, shocking and, of course, funny. Eddie is the only action hero I know who could begin a movie by making rude remarks behind some guy reading a porno magazine and end it with smart-aleck remarks about Ed McMahon.

No problem with this 'Child': it's a 'Golden' find.

Nine stars. Viva Nepal!


... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised 'disturbing and politically incorrect scenes', and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4/10


Zzzzzzzzzzzz. This one came directly from the 'Jaws' cookie-cutter mold, with some other bizarre cliches thrown in for good measure. I was interested in seeing this after finding a still from it in a book about Italian horror films, and wow...I guess I got what I deserved!

Very slow-moving and talky, much of this killer shark movie takes place on land, which isn't really that surprising. It seems like the only method they had of showing a shark is through shots of a shark in an aquarium. The shark is never in the same frame as any of the actors, and that's too bad...most of the characters are so annoying that you actually wish they would get eaten.

The 'plot' concerns a group of four kids who meet up with a mysterious Indian on the beach one day while roasting weenies. The Indian, for some reason, gives them an ancient artifact that will allow them to track an ancient evil that assumed the form of a monster shark to attack their tribe...supposedly because they were too good at fishing the ocean and the ocean god was worried they would take all the fish. Or something like that.

It's a good thing too, because wouldn't ya know it...years later, a monster shark appears and starts gobbling up people in the sleepy seaside community. When one of the four guys are eaten by the shark, the remaining three are determined to kill the thing...especially since (big shocker here) the authorities have killed a shark and they think the threat is over. Yawn.

The obligatory death scenes are unbelievably tedious, and you can see them coming a mile away (my favorite was the girl who has a fight with her boyfriend while they're sitting in a van, then jumps out and says 'I'm going for a swim,' immediately to be gobbled up by the waiting shark). They had a lot of nerve calling this film 'Deep Blood' since you hardly see any, just cloudy water. The actors handle their cliched roles like they're all thumbs, and there is even a hilarious subplot involving a greasy rocker-type bad boy who threatens our goody-goody heroes, then turns good in the end to help kill the shark.

It took me a really long time to find this film, it is rather obscure, so I don't think there's any danger of too many people wasting their time on this. However, if you should be lured into it...don't say you weren't warned!


All the talent Mr. Sooraj Barjatya showed in his first 3 movies, I thought were all an accident because his 4th one Main prem ki diwani hoon was so bad. But I have to say it wasn't an accident. This guy is talented and the way he has done Vivah is just brilliant. Right from the first scene it affects you. the sequences between shahid and amrita are awesome. The chemistry between these two actors gives glimpses of that between srk and kajol. As usual Alok Nath as the good and loving father is fantastic, so is Anupam Kher. But its a Shahid-Amrita film.Amrita looks good in most scenes though shahid does look a little young to get married but he does a good job of a shy but yet morally strong groom. this movie will especially be liked by those who has gone through such beautiful moments in their life. All in all a brilliant film. hats off to Mr. Sooraj Barjatya...


The idea for the movie wasn't too bad: a horror film shot in a corn maze on Halloween. The bad part was the shoddy camera work, the ten million shots of puddles and corn, and the hour and a half long walk this guy took in the maze. Oh, I'm sorry, the 'maize.' I picked up this movie because it reminded me of a corn maze near where I live, and I thought it was a cool idea for a movie. But taking everything into consideration, it seems that your average Joe could take the same idea and run much further with it. Bill Cowell's acting wasn't too bad, in fact, I would say it was pretty good. But the lack of talent from his co-stars didn't help his efforts. Here's to hoping his next movie will be easier to swallow.


The movie is good and I think Tiffany Amber is very beautiful. I liked the movie. Can anyone tell me how I can get hold of the songs from this movie? Even the soundtrack will do. If that's not possible, can I at least get the names of the songs with their respective singers? I tried to look up amazon.com but its not there. I tried CD baby, not there either. I browsed through Google to get some details but there weren't any. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the answer to my question. I know that the songs belong to Country Music and is sung by a country artist. I just need the title names along with the singer. I would recommend this movie or rather the songs to any country loving person.


Somehow, somewhere, someplace.. you GOTTA see this film. Breath taking aerials, and incredible outstanding performances from highly gifted actors.You think Cirque du Soleil blows your mind,wait till you see what these 2 women do - most importantly, the emotional journey and struggles Jane(Dreya Weber) faces are universal in theme to many women. A superbly directed film which deals with the complexities of relationships,and holding on, until you're ready to let go. This masterpiece will touch women and men alike. Ned Far (director/writer) and ridiculously talented Dreya Weber (star/producer) just had the guts to tell it, honestly and sincerely. This film will hit big - see it HOWEVER you can - or you won't be 'in the loop' when it becomes one of the most talked about films.


This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.

Heres what i didn't like:

1 They were shooting at the father

2 The tribes was really annoying

3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked

4 The bad scientist well he was annoying

5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad

What i DID like:

1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.

2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.

3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing

4 That funny scene with the tent.

5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.


Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.

As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.

From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.

This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.


Blind Spot's images are great. The action draws you in completely, even though the movie is a bit long. By the end credits all that you can think about are the film's positive high-points. The lead actors have the most incredible screen presence. The story is heart-wrenching. The film score is nicely understated . Completely moving in its own powerful way. Not your standard melodramatic cuing. Trance-like moments add poetic resonance to the engrossing narration and terrific visual compositions. Hope you get a chance to see this film. It delves into some dark territory but you come out of the tunnel seeing nothing but white light.


This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen 'aleopathic' doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- 'the doctor said there was no cure,' 'the doctor said it was cancer' etc. Well, 'no cure' doesn't mean 'no treatment,' and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.


I voted 8 for this movie because of some minor childish flaws. Other than that, this movie is one of my favorites! It's entertaining to say the least. The shooting scenes are ridiculous though, and I think Gackt (who wrote the book) takes a little bit too much of his 'Matrix obsession' into it. It seems like their enemies just stands there...waiting to get shot at. However, this movie is touching and it always makes me cry. It has a lot of GREAT humor in it so it makes me laugh as well. Gackt is a superb actor I must say..he shows so much emotion. This was Hyde's first time acting and he did okay. The role fits him. Wang Lee Hom is absolutely great. The whole cast is what I would say, perfect for this movie. DON'T MISS IT! YOU'LL REGRET IT!


Of all the kids movies I have seen over the years this was probably the worst. I took four kids aged from 7 to 11 and none of them liked it.

The script seemed to be based on a Willy Wonka style story but it just didn't have anything to it.

If you are considering seeing this movie dont waste your time, it is bad.

They are making a sequel, so it may be worth watching to see if they can even make a worse movie, but I don't think it is possible.


As has already been noted, the short film 'Every Sunday' (1936) could be considered the first music video. This was a happy accident resulting from MGM's need to crank out a variety of short films for exhibit with its feature length material. They had a couple fresh young singing talents (Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin) available and essentially slapped together a blend of music styles in a kind of Norman Rockwell concert in the park setting.

Who would have dreamed at the time that they would capture the best collection of images since Eisenstein's 'Odessa Steps' sequence.

It's Sunday with some inattentive folks sitting around a small wooden band shell in the park while a tired looking ensemble play Strauss. Events unfold and the next Sunday Judy and Deanna save the day. The operatic Deanna sings 'Il Bacio' (The Kiss) and Garland follows with the contrasting 'Waltz with a Swing'. The climax nicely blends the two styles into a duet of 'Americana'.

A must see.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.

I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the 'full faith and credibility' clause. It's 'full faith and credit,' by the way!

This also reminds me of 'The Conrad Boys,' where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.


Original Movie lovers can actually love this show, if they just stop complaining all the time.

The Emperor's New School brings up some old jokes from the movie, like pulling the lever to Yzma's lab and Kuzco pausing the episode. But since it's a kids show, it's just classic and is in their right places. Even though the style is much more simple, the animation and characters keeps their personalities very well and it surprised me, actually. Eartha Kitt makes excellent voice acting for Yzma and J.P Manoux does a wonderful job for Kuzco's voice instead of David Spade, who played Kuzco in the movie. Great plots, hilarious moments and Kuzco's amazing looks makes this show worth watching. (Just stop complaining about everything!)


It's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.

At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.

There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better.


The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.

The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.

Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.

It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.

Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene 'Judge' and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.

The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.

The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.


For those of you out there who have seen this pic on VHS, I would recommend the DVD. In fact the VHS is utter rubbish. The main reason is that the film was shot widescreen (2.55:1) and the producers ran out of money making the VHS version and released it as 4:3. The result is that several actors are not on screen at all, and in many drag races, less than half the cars are showing since one is on each side of the screen. The DVD is actually a reasonable version of the film.

A lot of the best scenes in the film were cut before the final release. They were viewed as being too offensive to minority groups. In fact the prospect of a US release caused even more cuts in the film. For example, the Americans reputedly did not understand words such as Petrol & Strides.

Mike's dad and mum were meant to be hippies. The dad survives in the film as a wasted dope smoking guitarist. But the following scene with the mum was cut. The scene took place in the roof space of the house which was lined with aluminium foil, fluoro lights and filled with plants... you get the picture. The producers had rounded up a lot of real plants for the foreground and when they saw the result on the big sheet, they freaked and the scene was cut. Cowards!

Yes, the film is noted as an Australian cult classic. Voted #2 in Street machines best 100 films of all time, narrowly missing out to Mad Max ll. The latter had over 10 times the budget of ROE. In fact the budget on ROE was so small that the director could not afford to wreck any of the cars... even though there would have been a public outcry if anyone had wrecked a real HO. (compare that with Smoky and the Bandit or Blues Bros where dozens of cars were wrecked.)

So there's one real GTHO and two fakes. One of the fakes was bought from the local indigenous community in Cobar after the standby GTHO crashed into the back of the Country Boy's truck. (That was unscripted! The car was meant to burst out from the side of the truck.) Because the budget was so tight, the car was made up with ordinary brown masking tape instead of the painted on gold trim of the real thing.

The 55 chev is absolutely real. The car began as a very plain 4 door and was brilliantly and quickly converted to the blown '55 in the film. The motor was a marinised 545 which made around 1000 bhp. This was reduced to around 600 for the filming. The car was able to easily to 170 mph as show in several scenes in the film.

Just for the record, anyone with $12,000 could have picked up ALL the cars after the film. The HO, the Dodge, the '53 Ute, Rammer's 53 Chev... the lot. Wonder where they are now?

SW


Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.


Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM


I was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too.


I liked this movie, the second Naruto feature film. I enjoyed the one in the snow a tad better though as I found the story here a bit disjointed as I was not sure where certain things were supposed to be happening or when. Still, like the first film this one too has a nice run time to it of a hour and a half, plenty of time for a nice well developed movie with some really cool fights. The story starts off with ninja from the village hidden in the sand in combat with unknown assailants. It then shits to Naruto, Sakura, and Shikumaru hunting down a ferret for what they think is going to be an easy assignment. They soon find out otherwise as they are also attacked and Naruto is separated from his friends after he has a fight with a strange young warrior clad in armor. They both are injured and taken in by a caravan and soon after Naruto is invited to join this strange organization that wishes to create a utopia. Of course, all is not as it seems and there are plenty of fights to go around. My favorite was the one involving Garaa fighting this strange woman who takes him very lightly which is a very big mistake. The concluding fight is rather good too involving Naruto and this strange man who is a better villain than any of those in the previous movie.


I cannot believe how perfect this movie is. Great CG graphics, good storyline, and the fights, oh the fights!!! This movie was great!! The characters. They look real enough to be considered real. They definitely resemble the ones from the game perfectly. The scene in which....well all the scenes, made my jaw drop. Fantastic 10/10 graphics The story. Perfectly explained. Plus the way Aeris comes to help Cloud at many different times in the movie. They explain it very well, and make your jaw drop from how perfect it is. But the repetitive fights do take some story out, but that is only a minor thing. Story 9.5/10 Everything else, great. The movie was just amazing. I really do not know what more i can say except that this movie was pretty much perfect. I LOVED IT!!!


Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.

Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.

This movie is definitely a great 'How Not To Make a Movie' guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.


I don't cry easily over movies, but I have to admit, this one brought me to tears. Although I am not a Ms. Streep fan, her performance was excellent. The title defines in a sentence what a mother's love is. For the first hour I didn't like any of the characters, but that changed as the movie went on. The movie also explained why certain marriages last even though there are obstacles. A must see film.


The storyline is absurd and lame,also sucking are performances and the dialogue, is hard to keep your Eyes open. I advise you to have a caffeine-propelled friend handy to wake you in time for a couple Gore-effects.Why they bring Alcatraz in?In this case,becomes increasingly difficult to swallow. All the while ,i wondered who this film aimed for?Chock full of lame subplots (such as the Cannibalism US Army-captain)This is low-grade in every aspect.BTW this Movie is banned in Germany!!


Vincent Cassel plays the part of Paul, an ex-con assigned to an office job where he meets Carla, a secretary who is quite deaf', when she has her hearing aids in very deaf when not (played by Emmanuelle Devos). Together they help each other to develop as people.

What was particularly interesting about this film was the complexity of the characters  not fitting into obvious stereotypes. Paul appears uneasy in the office environment, is it that he's just not cut out for work? This belief is dispelled when he gets a job in a bar and shines.

The film has a certain amorality which I find refreshing and showed how easy is to act criminally, even if we think it is harmless or justified.

Finally, it is a film full of great moments' both touching and humorous. One is when Carla is babysitting and is trying to comfort a screaming baby. She continues to cuddle it  but takes her hearing aids out for her own comfort.


Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the 'fantasy' scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the 'mod' drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****


Fever Pitch has many of the clichés we have come to identify with Hollywood romantic comedies: a relationship between two people with little in common, the secret he's been hiding that she discovers, the inevitable breakup, and the very public  well, I won't go any further but you get the picture. In spite of its predictability, it works, especially if you love baseball as I do, though I'm not quite as obsessive as Ben Wrightman, a Boston schoolteacher played by Saturday Night Live comedian Jimmy Fallon.

Adapted from a novel by Nick Hornby by veteran screenplay writers Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, Ben is a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan whose Uncle gave him season tickets when he was seven years old and he's been kind of stuck emotionally at that point all of his life to the detriment of his relationships with women. Ben is not just a fan but a 'fanatic' who travels to Fort Meyers, Florida each winter for the Red Sox Spring Training games and never misses a home game during the regular season. His family does not consist of parents or siblings but the fellow groupies who attend each game with him and his bedroom is not a place to sleep but a Red Sox museum to visit.

When he falls for business consultant Lindsay Meeks (Drew Barrymore), he is threatened with the possibility of having to grow up but Ben is not quite ready to do that. He would rather attend the Yankee series than go with her to Baltimore to meet her parents or to go to Paris with her and miss the Anaheim series. It takes his relationship being on the verge of dissolving, for him to stop and think about his priorities, especially when a pint-size Dr. Phil wannabe asks him, 'You love the Red Sox, but have they ever loved you back?' While the premise of Fever Pitch is that some things are more important than baseball (perish the thought), you would never know it from the way things turn out. Of course, to any one familiar with the history of the Boston Red Sox, it is a team that will break the hearts of its most die hard fans -- but this is 2004, the year the curse of the Bambino came to an end and as the Red Sox move to a new level, Ben might just do the same. Both lead performances are excellent and the Farrelly Brothers even manage a pretty gross gag. While Fever Pitch will never be mistaken for an art film, it is a joyous romp that will have to go down as one of my guilty pleasures. Go Blue Jays!.


Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers.

The film kicks off with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its brevity.

HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those 'must be seen to be believed' type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!).

REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum.

RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think 'P iss Christ' or menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual/sexually violent/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone who will be offended by sacrilege.

Subconscious Cruelty is one of the best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous enough to try it. 9/10.


And one only, in my opinion.

That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.

Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.

Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.


Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.


I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist.


On more than one level, I can relate to what happens in this movie in a very personal way. And all I can say about it is, that it's true, what Dexter's mom tells Eric at the end of the story: he actually did 'cure' her son, by taking away his sad feelings and his loneliness.

This movie emphasis a philosophy I can very well agree with. We are all going to die one day sooner or later. In the end, it is not the amount of time we live, but the fun/good times/happiness we have during that time. It is not the quantity, but the quality that counts.

I guess all other words used here would only keep you any longer from getting to see this movie, if you haven't already. I really would like to see it released on DVD. Definitely it would be added to my 'all time classics' right away!


It gets really bad. The only half-way redeeming quality is the effects from the thousands of bullets used during the film. There are context errors everywhere. The acting is horrible, save Kirk. The story is as holey as the grail, and the belief that the movie is a video game in itself just kills the movie, if it wasn't already a corpse. So all in all it's a waste of your life. I would have given this a zero had that been an option on the rating scale.


I saw it last night on TV, and was quite delighted.

It is sort of the movie which makes you feel nice and warm around heart, and believe that there is still some goodness in the world (all the neighbours pretended not to see what grace was doing in order to help her and protect her- the old policeman is my favourite), although you know that this story is not quite realistic.

I loved acting (they all seemed just as ordinary, common people, living in small picturesque English coast town) but the greatest thing in the movie was the wit and humor it has! Just remember the scene in the shop with two old ladies after they had their 'tea'!!

Perhaps the ending was a little bit confusing, but it didn't stop me from really, really enjoying the whole story!


This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.

I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.

After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.

Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose?

We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.


Barbra Streisand's first television special was simply fantastic! From her skit as a child to her medley of songs in a high-fashion department store -- everything was top-notch! It was easy to understand how this special received awards.

Not muddled down by guest appearances, the focus remained on Barbra thoughout the entire production.


In my line of work, I occasionally get contacted by independent filmmakers who are trying to publicize their film. When I can, I take a look at these low-budget films and often they make me think that the future of Hollywood is going to the dogs. Once in a while, though, there is a film that is born of pure passion and desire, as if created for the purpose of reminding the film industry that good movies are still possible. The short film B R O K E N, directed by Alex Ferrari, is a genuine surprise and worth a second look.

Clocking in at a scant 20 minutes, B R O K E N tries to tell a compelling (but surreal) story with almost no back story. The audience is plopped down in the middle of the action with no clue as to what is happening. A young woman (Samantha Jane Polay) awakens from a dream to hear a gunshot and is subsequently abducted from her home. When she awakes, she is surrounded by a group of mercenary thugs that look like they would be at home in a comic book. These nasty guys and girls are larger than life. They are all guns and knives. There is no way out.

The kicker here is that, despite being a low budget film it doesn't play like one. From the very beginning, the feeling is that B R O K E N has been shot, edited, and produced by professionals. It looks like something Quentin Tarantino might have done on his day off when he was jamming with the Wachowski brothers. The film is sharp and cool, it looks good and it feels like something big.

The acting is much better than I usually see in these smaller films. Polay and Paul Gordon (who plays the head killer, Duncan) were well chosen. As two of the few speaking roles in the film, it is up to them to carry the film. No special effects, no matter how good, would have saved this film from bad acting. Thankfully, Polay manages to convey true fear and Gordon manages to come off as a real psycho. Some of the more limited roles seem to be filled by lesser talent, but it hardly shows.

The downside to B R O K E N is that it's only 20 minutes long. The story ends with a Twilight Zone twist that seems a bit contrived and is hardly subtle. Watching it, I felt like I was supposed to have some epiphany, but there was only a feeling that it was much more mundane than I had hoped it would be. The film tries hard to be one of those puzzles that leaves audiences talking for hours at the local coffee shop, but it comes off as unsatisfying. I keep thinking that this is the first 20 minutes of a longer film.

MY RATING: 8 out of 10.


I started watching this because i thought it was a really shitty porno. As i kept watching the only thrill i got from this movie was finding out what the name of it was so i could look it up and rip on it. I just finished it and have considered ending my life knowing that someone actually made this movie.

For the people who commented on this movie as having a good script and great acting, my words of wisdom for you are that you probably have no friends because you were in the movie. You are probably wishing you had all that time back of your life that you wasted on making this movie.

There is no way that this is a serious movie. There was an old guy that gets stabbed and it doesn't even hurt him at all. And when everyone else gets stabbed they drop dead.

It was probably important that these people killed random people and ate them and also hung out with an 80 year old man that wanted to put the parts into his body.

My favorite part was when the old man found the 'hemoglobens' or however you spell it because that made the movie seem very intellectual and probably helped to reach the older crowd.

What really blew my mind that they decided to throw in that random scene about the college girls going into the woods looking for fake skulls.

If you do attempt to see this movie, you should probably fill up your bathtub and drop your hairdryer in it and be ready to jump in.

THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!....for anyone who believes there life could not get any worse because this will help you realize there are people out there(the makers of this movie) who are even more pathetic and are going no where in life.


I won't repeat all that has been said already by other viewers of this film.

In my opinion this is an excellent film, not only as a very human tale of the developing relationship between a father and his grown-up son, but also as a little window onto the world of practising Islam, for those like me who are not very familiar with that religion.

An important aspect of this story is that of the young man's relation to his father's beliefs and practices, and how his attitude towards the religion seems to alter in subtle ways as we progress on their journey with them.

This is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable and well-made film that I would recommend to anyone with brain and heart.


To be honest, I didn't like 'Executive Decision' - which was obvious the template - very much, but compared to this piece of crap, it looks like a masterpiece of art.

Not only that the people moving in the film (the term actors would be an insult for all other actors) should attend more acting classes, the guy who build the setting hasn't even seen an aircraft from afar. It is so ridiculous, that on a 747 only 3 flight attendance are aboard, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The film is full of illogicalness (e.g.: use sleeping-gas, then don't use it, then use it anyway), which dropped my rating finally to the bottom.

You can have more fun in rearranging you sock drawer or in drilling a hole in your knee and fill it with milk.


The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's 'I'll Take You There' is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, 'I'll See You There' is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.

The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a 'date' for her traumatized brother.

The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to 'rebound' with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)

Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way.


I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.

The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.

I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.


What can you say when you see a good French movie which tries to draw a suspenseful story in line with the social background of the characters? The major point is we believe in those characters and once they've met each other we want them to stay together. It's simple and really efficient. The background story is less important. Why does the screenplay go on the side of a half-developed thriller? It helps not to get stuck in those social demonstrations most French film-jerkers like to make. Not too much ambition, right: Sur mes lèvres is only an entertaining French film with good characterization.

For all the clever noir points in the screenplay the end is by far too easy. It goes quite as easy as in Rear Window (an obvious reference and definitely not a noir film) but with a less compelling context. Where I am amazed it's to see that the character of the probation officer has not been erased. He brings very little to the story; when he appears alone we wonder if we've not missed a part before. Jacques Audiard is not a new-comer yet. Strange and weird.


In the early 19th century, a young woman with a harelip falls foul of her family's ambition and the superstitions of the local community, but she meets a man who may see her differently, and just may, change Pru's life forever.

Precious Bane is a British Broadcasting Corporation adaptation of the highly acclaimed novel by Mary Webb. It's a beautifully filmed piece that is acted to an incredibly high standard, the story {screenplay by Maggie Wadey} is excellent, and the period detail and use of dialect is second to none. It's such a shame that this film has yet to get a DVD release, one would have thought that with Clive Owen's {great here as Gideon} rise to stardom, the BBC would get it out there, but sadly no, so the only way of catching it is on the very rare occasions that TCM shows it. The lead performance from Janet McTeer as Pru Sarn is simply brilliant, guts and genuine emotion go hand in hand as McTeer gives it her all. Pru has to not only contend with her facial disfigurement, but also the constant snides and hurt from the ignorant villagers. This is a time when folk believed that if a Hare ran in front of a pregnant woman it spelt doom, a time of Bull Baiting, a time of superstitions and talk of witches. In spite of constant set backs Pru is strong and resourceful, even her own family knock her dreams back without realising it, but this road may well be a terribly bumpy one, but hope is everlasting, and Pru has hope in abundance.

8.5/10


First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation 'Magistral''. 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: 'Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling 'oblivion'. These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And 'prapors' were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted 'plan' has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on...'

If you want a fairy tale about war, '9 rota' and 'Shtrafbat' is for you. If you want truth, you must see 'Come and see' or 'Batallions Ask for Fire'.


Riding Giants is an incredible documentary detailing the history and stories of three influential big-wave surfers, Gregg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton. Stacy Peralta did an amazing job taking on the role of director and should be congratulated for doing such a brilliant job. The structure of the film is edited brilliantly and works perfectly with the narration, interviews, animation and surfing footage. The music soundtrack just adds to the overall satisfaction of watching this film, making Riding Giants brilliant viewing. Personal highlights include any of Greg Noll's comments, what with his straight-to-the-point frankness, Laird Hamilton's footage at Teahupoo, and the out-takes at the end of the movie. But really this entire film is one big, recommended highlight that comes highly recommended if you have the opportunity to see. It's a shame it isn't more well known, but it is a gem deserving of attention. 10/10


I have recently seen a string of caving movies and this film managed to cobble together all the worst aspects of this kind of film. You get very little appreciation for the caving surrounds or the monster that they face, while the characters are clichéd (spiritual guy, leader with tragedy in recent past etc) and the ending was just weak. It really annoyed me that the director kept shaking the camera or showing almost total darkness to create atmosphere. I have read that this movie gave a real representation of caving and yeah, I imagine that caves are dark. Showing near total blackness for half the film really brought that home. I quite enjoyed 'the descent' which, for my money had better acting, showed more tight caving situations, better monsters and had a good ending.

****spoiler******

The monster turns out to be some guy whose plane crashed and parents were killed, leaving him to grow up in the caves. He seems to have developed super strength and speed, but why is never addressed - maybe the same force that drained their torch batteries caused this but during the film whenever someone is killed you get the impression of something large with claws that tears up each victim (see how much blood splatters the walls!) but in the end its just some dude with a fur draped over him and a mask? I would be willing to overlook this if great heights of suspense were reached but this was hardly the case. Then he starts raping the last remaining caver and roll credits... Almost absurdly bad I thought. Sometimes a film is soo bad you can appreciate it and maybe have a laugh, but this films fails to take itself lightly as well.

You watched it, you can't unwatch it!


i, too, loved this series when i was a kid. In 1952 i was 5 and my family always watched this show. My favorite character was the one played by Marion Lorne as a rather stuttering, bumbling and very lovable 'aunt' type person. i can still recall her 'ubba bubba um um' type comments as she would try and say something important. And then when she came back and played Aunt Clara in Bewitched it was great casting!

It was the first time that i can remember seeing Walter Matthau whose career i followed as a fan for many many years.

i have a question if anyone can verify: was the title or end credits music the 'Swedish Rhapsody' by Hugo Alfven? Every time i hear it played on my classical radio station here in Southern California it brings back memories of the image of Mr. Peepers walking away with his back to the camera. i'm not even certain if this image in my mind's eye is correct.


What a travesty of movie ratings injustice - a 2.1 on the IMDb scale as I write this. Folks, this is a lot closer to a 3.0, I'll even go out on a limb and say 4.0 where I've put it. Come on - how can you have a movie about a net of static electricity surrounding the earth and alien amorphic cell structures, and not give it at least a 4.0 for creativity? Then you've got all that great dialog like - 'Dave, look at the composition of this mud.' You know, I don't think they ever got back to that mud. No matter, this is the kind of flick that 'Z' movie diehards live for, and I can now rest easy. Actually, I saw this quite a few years ago without the proper appreciation for it, along with Corman titles like 'Attack of the Giant Leeches ' and 'The Wasp Woman'. I don't know what the fascination might be, but to quote a character from the film - 'Whatever it is, it works fast!'

Back to that alien amorphic cell structure - I liked the idea of a third element competing against your standard red and white blood cells. When astronaut John Corcoran (Michael Emmet) returned from the dead, I had visions of a scene that might have been a precursor to 1979's 'Alien', but that was not to be. Instead, budget restrictions limit the picture to a de-feathered Big Bird knock off, even though that concept was still almost a decade away. Who knows where one idea leaves off and picks up with another?

Look, this is not that bad. Not that good, but not that bad. Anytime you can hook up crash landing astronauts with alien beings committed to taking over the Earth, you've got a winning combination. Throw in the cheesy monster factor and you're on your way. Just remember - 'A wounded animal that large isn't good'.


Would it be too trite of me to create a review of just me saying the word 'STUPID' over and over again? Probably.

This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen. Seriously. There are better movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I saw this movie for the first time at a friend's birthday party when it was still in theaters. Even though it was actually *with friends* and at one of their *birthday parties,* I had to leave. I actually had to leave. I just excused myself and walked out. Fortunately, some of the parents were doing the same thing, so I didn't look like a total jerk... Anyway, this film is awful. There is nothing to like about it. It's painfully (as in actually causing physical pain) slow, and sickeningly (literally does induce vomiting) unfunny. You almost feel sorry for Tom Arnold, but then you don't because you remember he was actually IN the movie. It really does pain me to even THINK about it.

It was on TV a few months ago, and I decided I had to watch it all the way through, just once. I remembered then why I walked out in the first place, and felt guilty for boosting its ratings by even one viewer. The gags aren't funny, the characters arn't interesting. it's just a senseless mess of pratfalls and stupidity.

There is a small crowd of then-eight-year-old kids who watched the movie when it came out and considered it 'brilliant.' If you think that having your face removed piece by pece with an ice cream scoop is brilliant, then by all means, go rent it. But if you have any dignity whatsoever avoid this big STUPID mess altogether. SCORE: 0/10 ... maybe a negative 1, actually.


If I guess your 'palabra', will you let me go through?- Asks William Geld, a Tim Robbins that keeps on acting like if they told him a fantastic joke and he is attempting not to laugh.

He is trying to get to a forbidden area. The woman stopping him continues blabbering: -Your 'palabra' is Carrefour.

-How did you know?- the lady asks, surprised. He answers, in the name of Wisdom: -I was hearing when you weren't talking. :/

Yes, this defines the movie. This precisely. It doesn't matter if Carrefour is 'road conjunction' in french, or if the Future is coldly bureaucratic and mixes languages. Or if Samantha Morton has nothing, nothing of Spanish (Maria Gonzalez being her name in the film) with her Irish, Scotish whatever tone.

It's boring and dull. If you fall in believing there are multiple symbolisms, you will buy the most bizarre, sickening love relationship ever, set in a future that may well be in seven seconds. I can guess this movie's palabra: it will be 'painful'.


A sweet and totally charming film, Shall We Dansu? made me laugh and cry. At first appearance, Sugiyama-san was not terribly appealing--an uptight salaryman, seemingly devoted to his family, but all too easily captivated by a face in a window. The object of his obsession is distant and cold. But by the end of the movie, I was in love with him, her, his wife and daughter, all the dance instructors and dance students. This uncomplicated story of transformation and renewal is a little jewel that I would enjoy seeing again.


I found this film to be quite an oddity. From the very get go I found it extremely hard to like this movie, and now after a little thinking about it I can pretty much pinpoint the reason why. Jean-Marc Barr, although I love him to bits (I think Zentropa is one of the best movies ever made) is quite miscast here, and although I can't figure for the life of me who would be better, I am sure someone could have taken his place quite easily and make this film work. Everything else is fine, except for the stabs at weak comedy (A Meet The Parents Joke is not really needed, filmmakers!) and I really like Richard E. Grant as the British Major. It just suffers from one thing.. Jean-Marc.


I attended a screening of this movie. It was wrought with clichés and very unfunny jokes and set ups. I think the other comments were by people who must've worked on the movie or been family members of the cast. I'm amazed this movie cost $3-$4 million without any real stars. Where did the budget go? It obviously didn't go to writers for re-writes. Nice thought to bank on the success of Big Fat Greek Wedding, but a major miss. There was little or any spark between the main characters and the inciting incident was a bit flimsy at best. The direction was uninspired and looked like a student film.

I don't even know what it means Everybody Wants to Italian. Is that a real saying. I've never heard it.


Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It was enjoyable from start to finish.

The story is about mentally challenged man who helps out with a football team.


This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both on screen and in the classroom.

This thought-provoking film is a must see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette. Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received, they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching.

I'd love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one?


for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??

the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.

don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.

sadly, from a guy from wings.

the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.

if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.


i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. 'bakjwi' literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be 'exceptional.' As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.

Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.

the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!

i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!


Definition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.

The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.

I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.


This very strange movie is unlike anything made in the west at the time. With its tumultuous emotions and net of visions, dreams, and startling images, its effect is both beautiful and unsettling. The actors are choreographed more like dance than acting. It contains the only dream sequence I know of that actually resembles a real nightmare (sorry, Dali fans).


There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.

This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.

As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.

I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.

At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.

If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?

I don't think so.


it's hard to tell you more about this film without spoiling it. I enjoyed it because I wasn't expecting what I was seeing, but an ordinary sex-drama so.... It's a pscyho-sexual thriller, in which nothing is what it seems. It features Emmanuelle Seigner, no stranger to the genre (and to nudity) in which her husband, Polanski, had directed her. And a creepy performance (did I say creepy/yes CREEPY) from Toreton (Bernard Tavernier's actor). It looks like a Pascal Bruckner meets Roman Polanski (better than Bitter Moon), like a Chabrol gone astray or Clouzot thriller (I have seen someone mentioning Les Diaboliques), but closer to Georges Franju's Les Yeux sans Visage (Eyes without a face, the godfather of Dr. Phibes and more). A gem ! I am just afraid they will blow this into a Hollywood remake like they did with Nighwatch and The Vanishing.


What I expected: A rather lame overly-stereotypical portrayal of a sports-mad guy and an equally lame stereotypical portrayal of the gal who likes him yet suffers while being second banana to his overly zealous support for his favorite sports team.

What I got: An even-handed story where both guy and gal end up admitting -- to themselves and each other -- that they each have passions in their lives yet each can forgive the other to save the love they share.

Sounds sappy but with the nonstop humor and terrific performances this story works! Barrymore is classic Barrymore: that perfect blend of sweet, strong, and adorable. We expect that from her and she delivered.

But Fallon is the nice surprise in this film. He brings to the role the perfect blend of sports nut combined with the appreciation for the normal things in life, like caring about kids and his girlfriend. Fallon delivers his lines with subtle perfection. He can be caring ('You just ran across the field for me!') and in the same breath be obliviously blinded by his love for the Red Sox ('How did the grass feel? Kinda spongy?') at the same time. Fallon's portrayal 'made' the movie. Hopefully, this movie marks the beginning of a better film career for Fallon, something beyond the over-the-top sophomoric humor typical of SNL alums (i.e. Will Ferrell).

In short, a movie that could have fallen victim to stereotypical male vs. female characters rose above that limitation and provided nonstop spot-on humorous lines, most delivered with brilliant subtlety by Fallon.

Hey, I saw this with my wife -- not a baseball fan -- and she loved it as much as I did. It's neither a 'Guy Flick' nor a 'Chick Flick'. It's a terrific make-you-laugh flick. Go see it!


I've always loved 'Gone With The Wind' and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only 'hanging,' but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in 'Scarlett,' Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ('beginning') of the original story.

It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.

There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.

In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.

I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.

The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!


As serials go 'Zorro's Fighting Legion' is one of the best action serials of the 1930s. Made in a period when the studios could still field a large cast, this one has wall to wall action throughout its 12 chapters.

In 1824 the President of the newly formed Republic of Mexico Benito Juarez (Carleton Young) is trying to put his new country on a solid financial footing. To that end, he has arranged to have rich gold shipments forwarded to the capitol from the local San Mendolita mine.

Members of the local council plot to steal the shipments on behalf of Don-del-Oro a gold armored god, who with the aid of the local Yaqui tribe, hopes to install himself as the ruler of Mexico. Opposing him is Don Francisco (Guy D'Ennery) who forms a legion of locals to aid Juarez. When Don Franciso is murdered by Don-del-Oro's men, a stranger, the fopish Don Diego (Reed Hadley) arrives in town. Diego aka Zorro takes over the legion with the help of his friends Ramon (William Corson) and Juan (Budd Buster). The token heroine of the piece is Ramon's sister Volita (Sheila D'Arcy).

Both Diego and Ramon hold seats on the local ruling Counsil. It soon becomes apparent that some of the other members of the Council are in league with Don-del-Oro. First there is the Chairman of the Council (Leander de Cordova), the head of the militia Manuel (John Merton), Chief Justice Pablo (C. Montague Shaw) and Gonzolez (Edmund Cobb). Zorro suspects that one of these men is Don-del-Oro, but which one?

What follows are several hair raising escapes by Zorro and his confederates from the followers of Don-del-Oro. We have the ever present collapsing rope bridge, the deep chasm between two cliffs over which only Zorro can jump to safety, and the usual assortment of explosions, fires and coaches and wagons crashing or going over the cliff. Hats off here to Republic's fine team of stunt men lead by the legendary Yakima Canutt and the Yrigoyens, Bill and Joe. Canutt performs his signature stunt jumping on a team of runaway horses and then falling beneath the coach which he repeated in other films including John Ford's 'Stagecoach' the same year.

Anyway, Zorro finally unmasks the false god Don-del-Oro and restores peace to the valley before riding off into the sunset in Chapter 12.

Others in the cast include Jim Pierce, Curley Dresden and Charlie King as Don-del-Oro's hence men and if you look closely you may spot bits by future serial star and Lone Ranger Clayton Moore and stuntman Canutt in bits. 'Big' Jim Pierce by the way, may be best remembered for playing Tarzan in 1927's 'Tarzan and the Golden Liom' (1927) and for his marriage to Joan Burroughs the daughter of Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Thoroughly enjoyable.