The opening was a steal from 'Eight-legged Freaks', a film that is everything this one isn't. Stilted and pedestrian are the words that apply - along with others that can't be repeated..! Drifter type returns to his home(?)town, meets up with old friends etc.... the usual annoying kid, single mother,local loudmouth and so on..Bad special effects, alien ship, atmospheric disturbances, (hey, didn't the Director see 'Close Encounters'?). Good acting? Good story? Good camera angles? Good cutting? Not here! Do not rent, unless you are sharing the cost and have a lot of beer handy. Do not watch on TV, go and drink a lot of beer instead - you'll enjoy it more!


It's very hard to say just what was going on with 'The Lady from Shanghai' and what the film could have been without studio interference. Orson Welles' prime interest in film at this point was to raise money for his theater; indeed, funding his own projects is what drove him to seek out acting jobs. He made 'Lady from Shanghai' for his soon to be ex-wife, Rita Hayworth. Harry Cohn was fearful for Rita's image and held back the release of this movie for one year.

The plot concerns an Irish sailor, Michael O'Hara, who falls in love with Else (Hayworth, stunning with short blond hair). Her husband is a well known criminal attorney Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) who is as crippled on the inside as he is out. He hires O'Hara to work on his yacht, and there O'Hara is drawn deeper and deeper into a web of murder and deceit.

'The Lady from Shanghai' moves at a snail's pace, though I agree with one of the posters that films today are criticized for taking time to build a plot. Still, this movie drags. The scene in the fun house is fantastic - Welles wanted it without music, though, and I believe the studio cut it down. It's a shame. The photography throughout is stunning, atmospheric, bold, and very stylish.

Welles was an excellent actor, handsome in his youth, charismatic and possessing a magnificent voice and technique, but in many films, it's almost as if he doesn't trust himself or doesn't take the time to develop a character. Instead he relies on externals such as accents and fake noses. One of the only times he didn't do this was 'Tomorrow is Forever,' where the director gets an excellent, deeply felt performance out of him. Contrast that with 'Compulsion' where he shows he is a master of pure technical acting as he phones in his performance. Here Welles is doing quadruple duty - as director, star, co-writer and narrator. Sporting a completely unnecessary accent and looking intense was a fast way to a characterization. Nevertheless, he is always compelling.

The supporting players are excellent, including Sloan and Glenn Anders. Hayworth, gorgeous and soft-voiced (her singing was again dubbed by Anita Ellis) is as usual a complete goddess and one of the great screen presences. What a sad life for such a vibrant beauty.

Any film that Orson Welles directed is worth seeing, and 'The Lady from Shanghai' is no exception. But this one leaves the viewer frustrated, as does 'The Magnificent Ambersons' - as does any work that Welles did within the studio system. He was a great artist who should have been given a freer reign; he wasn't. He was a strange dichotomy - he needed more freedom, but as is evidenced by some of his later work, he needed the structure of the studio. Alas, he couldn't have both.


Stilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.


I married a Japanese woman 14 years ago. We're still together.

However in the 1950's it would never have been as easy.

Life in the military had been mined for action, drama, and comedy for years by this point. Mined to death. The mixed relationships gave it new ground to cover. This is old hat today, but then...? Marrying an Asian back then meant you either owed somebody something or you were a freak of some sort. This touched on both possibilities along with the third. Maybe it IS love?

Brando did his usual good job. Garner did a better job than he usually does. He's good, but this showed how good he could be. Umecki-chan had a helluva debut here and while I think she earned her statue, she didn't really stretch. It was a role that no one who hadn't been overseas would have recognized and the newness was the corker.

The real scene stealer was Red Buttons. Red was the best thing in this film. Bank on it. And the Japanese lifestyles were shown in an admirable light as well.

A classic.


I watched this movie for the first time ever on the Sci Fi channel and I must say.. it was simply awesome. For those of you whom loves 'The Never Ending Story' this is one that would bring back memories of that movie. Even though it is a 1996 movie it has a hazy like setting and look which makes it feel like it is, a fantasy. The acting was brilliant and the music was great especially the beginning battle song and end song. To those of you who have yet to see it, WATCH IT! I recommended completely!


Loved this movie, what a hoot. Rupert and Julie are great together with Rupert being almost poker faced against Julie's animation, which worked well. Laura did a good job as the overbearing mother.Julie of course is marvellous as usual. While this movie will keep you laughing most of the time it also has a poignant side to it as it unravels the secrets in the lives of the main characters. Interesting that it was entitled Driving Lessons as this might lead you to believe this is the main feature of the movie which directly it is not though it certainly could be seen as 'Ben' finally being in the driving seat in his own life. Like most things that are funny in life there is always the sad side and there are some moving moments in this movie. Very enjoyable movie and well worth watching.


We bought the DVD set of 'Es war einmal das Leben' (German) / 'Once Upon a Time... Life' (English) for our bilingual kids because everyone loved the 'Es war einmal der Mensch' (German) / 'Once Upon a Time... Man' (English) series (us parents had seen it as kids) and it has exceeded even high expectations! The series is very well made, does not show its age, and our kids at various ages really like to watch it. At the same time, they learn things us parents didn't know until way, way later. The series covers everything to do with the human body from organs, all senses, blood, infection, antibodies, and much more in animated 20-25 min episodes. Topics some people may find 'sensible', such as digestion and reproduction are covered in a tasteful, discreet and child-friendly manner (the reproduction episode starts coverage mainly where the baby starts growing), while still (as typical) informative and fun.

Children are usually fascinated with how their bodies work and through the episodes gain an understanding of this in the context of their environment. The format of the episodes switches between the outside world (a family with 2 children) and the inside of the body. For example, in the episode covering infections, the boy cuts himself accidentally and the wound gets infected and the episode covers how the body reacts to this. Similarly, the episodes on the senses, e.g. hearing, seeing, link what happens inside the body to the context of the outside world and the episode on respiration and circulation of oxygen in the blood covers the complete lifecycle including (briefly) where the oxygen comes from (plants).

This is one of the best ever children's programs - I would say it's a must see for every family with kids!


Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle 'Hutch' was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings.

He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?

Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.

Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.


Not that he'd care, but I'm not one of Simon Pegg's friends. If I was, there's a good chance we'd fallout if he continued to make dross like this. The trouble is, he found a successful formula as the bumbling, ordinary guy-next-door type in Shawn of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run etc, but it's starting to wear thin. Here his character has no discernible qualities, he's rude and obnoxious, and thinks he's funny when he frankly isn't. When transferred to New York from London (and I presume this link is meant to appeal to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic), he proves equally out of place with his new colleagues. Still, is it any wonder when amongst his jolly japes he hires a transvestite stripper to appear at an editorial meeting an act of revenge for his boss. Yet somehow, Kirsten Dunst starts to warm to him, even though he's done nothing nice. Oh, and because he's a superficial male he falls for Megan Fox at first sight, possibly because her character is as shallow as his. It all makes for a predictable film conclusion, although I can't see any viewer expressing how this mirrored their life. The shame is that on paper this is a cast supposedly worth watching. Pegg, though, plays himself, Kirsten Dunst seems to just go though the motions, creating no on screen chemistry, and Megan Fox isn't stretched at all. The one huge plus is Miriam Margolyes, as Pegg's New York landlady - now if she had been on screen longer.....


I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David 'Makin' It' Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter' run by Leon! This guy rocks! A 'genius' with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the 'bad guys'. But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! 'Johnny's Obese Male Child?' Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE!


Words can't describe how bad this movie is. I can't explain it by writing only. You have too see it for yourself to get at grip of how horrible a movie really can be. Not that I recommend you to do that. There are so many clichés, mistakes (and all other negative things you can imagine) here that will just make you cry. To start with the technical first, there are a LOT of mistakes regarding the airplane. I won't list them here, but just mention the coloring of the plane. They didn't even manage to show an airliner in the colors of a fictional airline, but instead used a 747 painted in the original Boeing livery. Very bad. The plot is stupid and has been done many times before, only much, much better. There are so many ridiculous moments here that i lost count of it really early. Also, I was on the bad guys' side all the time in the movie, because the good guys were so stupid. 'Executive Decision' should without a doubt be you're choice over this one, even the 'Turbulence'-movies are better. In fact, every other movie in the world is better than this one.


The quintessential Georgian film of Georgi Danelia, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't Grieve is loosely based on the novel by French writer Claude Tillier (1801-1844) 'Mon oncle Benjamin' The novel takes place in the country side of the 18th Century France. The Great French Revolution is still ahead but some of its stormy signs are present in society. Benjamin, the local doctor is a soul of a local society, the educated, friendly, democratic person who often treats the poor for free. It makes him very popular with the locals but most certainly does not help with his bank account. He is in love with a beautiful Manette who is also crazy about him but is being watched closely by her father who called his daughter 'his small capital' and is determined to protect her virginity until the moment the marriage contract has been signed... I never read the book, and from description it sounds like a charming very French novel but I am fascinated with the results of moving the characters and some plot elements from 18th Century France to the beginning of 20th century Georgia-Grusiya. I would think that it was Danelia who came up with all the colorful memorable characters that feel so much at home in his native Georgia-Grusiya, the land of long and wonderful traditions, including Art of making and drinking wine, rare music talent that all Georgians seem to possess, very unique humor, and high code of honor. When we watched the film last night together with my husband, he said, what a great example of an Art film, and I so agree with him. Don't Grieve is a perfect Art movie, visually beautiful, deep but funny, at times sad and philosophical but never in a preachy arrogant way but optimistic, celebrating life with all its beauty and sadness, full of interest, loving irony and understanding for its slightly eccentric but very human characters. What is the most important, the film is warm and gentle, it does not look down at its viewers as some of the Art pictures do. You don't have to be a movie buff to love it, to live with it, to smile and sigh at it, to follow the good-hearted young Doctor Benjamin (first role in a Danelia film of famous singer and actor Wachtang Kikabidze with whom Danelia would go on to make two more films including one of my all time favorites, Mimino) on his journey through the roads and mountains of Georgia. Or to be a guest on one of a kind party where the friends gather to celebrate life of the old doctor Levan who wanted to be a guest on his own wake, to hear what his friends have to say about him when he dies while he is still alive, and who gets to choose which color he prefers for his coffin. When I watched the film I thought that it is a sort of movie that Federico Fellini might have liked. I was not surprised at all to find the article about Danelia where he names Fellini his number one director. I also found out that according Danelia, the famous Soviet directors, Leonid Gaiday (the creator of many beloved comedies) and Sergei Paraszhanov (the visionary whom I don't have to introduce loved another Danelia's film, fairy tale about American boy Huck Finn, Sovsem propashchiy) felt and spoke negatively about Don't Grieve while Fellini praised it highly. I dare go a little further and just guess that perhaps Maestro Fellini kept in mind some images and the very aura and atmosphere of Don't Grieve when he was making Amrarcord in 1973. Just a thought, because there is something essential that connects both films. Both Artists came back to their roots, to the places that they love deeply, to the people they remembered, loved and wanted to honor. Both films have a lot of smiles through the tears. Both are Art movies that would get directly to the hearts of the viewers. Both are masterworks.

I think I am going to add Georgi Danelia to the list of my favorite directors. He has made some of the brilliant pictures in my most favorite genre of dramedy, even tragicomedies that are funny and bitter sweet, poignant and subtle, earthy and uplifting, gentle and shining. When I looked up the list of the movies he has written/directed, I was amazed at the fact that he has not made a single bad film since he started back in 1960 with the Award winning story of a young boy, Seryozha. Many of Danelia's films are among my favorites, as I am sure they are among his legions of fans. The man behind 'Seryozha, Sovsem propashchiy (1972) which is an adaptation of Mark Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 33, Ya shagayu po Moskve (1964) aka Walking the Streets of Moscow, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't grieve, Afonya (1975), Mimino (1977), Osenniy marafon (1979) aka Autumn Marathon or Sad Comedy which is a very fitting title for this movie as well as for the whole genre that Danelia practically invented, and the cult favorite for over 20 years Kin-Dza-Dza (1986), is brilliant and deserves our true love and genuine gratitude for the unforgettable moments of cinematic happiness.


This film was embarrassing in its clichés, poor acting and generally low production values. It starts out badly with the long haired 3 star general calling the hero, Masters, 'major' when he is obviously wearing the silver oak leaves of lieutenant colonel. But what was most distressing was the crew of soldiers on Neptune Atoll. How out of touch with any kind of reality can you get? They were all experts on flying a 747 and the scenes of the soldiers digging the ditch were beyond comical.

WARNING: THIS FILM IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL HEALTH! WATCH AT YOUR OWN PERIL!


I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.

Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.

Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.

This film is special. Get it, now!


Excellent documentary that still manages to shock and enlighten. Unfortunately, times haven't changed much since this was made and it is thus an important piece for all freedom-conscious Americans to see.


Viva La Bam was one of those shows that I didn't have high if any expectations for, before seeing it, and I never even knew about it until I saw my friend watching it. I had thought Jackass was pretty funny but the stunts were just that, funny and I never really got into the show. When I watched Viva La Bam for the first time it was the complete opposite effect, I loved it. It had more of a TV Show feel to it, which a lot of the 'Reality Shows' have today. I was hooked and I wanted to see what new scheme they were going to cook up for each episode. All the way to the last episode it held my interest and even though some of the ideas seemed rehashed at times, it always had a newer and funnier twist to it. Viva La Bam is one of those shows that get you hooked and I have yet to see another show that is quite like it.


Flatliners has all the ingredients of a good Joel Schumacher film - intelligent, youthful characters, stunning cinematography, a gripping story, and excellent performances. It's escapist fun but it's done very well and resonates with a positive spiritual message despite the unnerving precedings.

Schumacher has a knack for spotting talented young actors, and all of the main five here have gone on to greater things (see the cast list). Their believable performances help to raise this movie well above average. Kiefer Sutherland shines in his egotistical med-student role.

The cinematography really stimulates the right side of the brain, which is what I love about Schumacher; his use of light and location create images that stick. A disturbing nightmarish atmosphere is created which unsettles you while you watch the film and haunts you when you go to bed - reminded me of The Lost Boys.

This is a film that takes an awesome premise - curious students want to find out what's after death, and successfully follows it through into a scary, gripping tale of redemption. One of Schumacher's best; highly recommended.


Safer indeed. Hitchcock is cinema's all time pervert; however, we all know his perversions are ours as well, so we forgive him. And we not only forgive him but we applaud his clever way to invite us for an unforgettable train ride.

I saw Hitch's 1953, I Confess, a week before this one, and I put both in the same category as part of his trademarks. These trademarks resided in his genius questioning and pulsing his artistic veins that spills psychological drops of blood on the viewer without leaving stains of guilt, instead very subtle awareness of feeling ashame.

The pen is always mightier than the sword and Hitch firmly wrote the most arguable questions with his wrist, and then holding firmly with his hands, he held cameras that always reflected peoples thirst for blood (most humans have), otherwise comedy wouldn't be mostly a tragic thing, and making people laugh wouldn't be so complex.

Mixing all dark elements of 'high society', with a wealthy psychopath Bruno, and an ambitious tennis player wanna be politician, Guy, the story is one of the most well constructed and guided by Hitch, inspiring many filmmakers, not only with its plot, but with tricky images provoking dark smiles and happy nightmares.

Barely perfect!


Growing up, Joe Strummer was a hero of mine, but even I was left cold by this film. For better and worse, The Future Is Unwritten is not a straightforward 'Behind the Music' style documentary. Rather it is a biographical art film, chock full of interviews, performance footage, home movies, and mostly pointless animation sketches lifted from 'Animal Farm.' The movie is coherent but overlong by about a half hour.

The campfire format, while touching in thought, is actually pretty annoying in execution. First off, without titles, its hard to even know who half of these interviewees are. Secondly, who really needs to hear people like Bono, Johnny Depp, and John Cusack mouth butt licking hosannas about the man? They were not relevant to Strummer's life and their opinions add nothing to his story.

This picture is at it's best when Strummer, through taped interviews and conversation, touches on facets of his life most people did not know about: the suicide of his older brother, coming to terms with the death of his parents, the joy of fatherhood. To me, these were most moving because it showed Joe Strummer not as the punk icon we all knew and loved, but as a regular human being who had to deal with the joys and sorrows of life we all must face.

There have been better, more straightforward documentaries about Strummer and The Clash. (Westway, VH1 Legends, and Kurt Loder's narrated MTV Documentary from the early 90's come to mind.) Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten is for diehards only.


In Strangers On A Train, it's obvious from the start that playboy wastrel Robert Walker has singled out Farley Granger as an unwilling accomplice to a pair of murders. Granger's a semi-public figure, he's a tennis pro, but not an especially high one. High enough however for him to know that Granger is trapped in a loveless marriage and would like to be free to marry Ruth Roman.

So when they meet as complete Strangers On A Train one afternoon, Walker knows enough that Granger will at least be intrigued enough with the possibility that if the two of them, complete strangers, did commit homicide on parties that the other would be convenienced by their demise. Though Granger is repulsed by the idea, one of the beautiful things about this film, is that you can see in the performance he gives that Granger just might submit to temptation.

In fact when Walker kills Laura Elliot, Granger's wife whose been two timing him and even gotten pregnant by another man, he expects that Granger will in turn murder Walker's father so that Walker can inherit his estate. Today Walker would be called a trust fund baby and a pretty malevolent one at that.

Alfred Hitchcock directed Walker to his career role, ironically in his last complete film. Walker died the following year with most of My Son John finished. Hitchcock does not do too bad by Farley Granger either.

Of course when Granger does balk at committing homicide on people who never did anything to him, the tension. Strangers On A Train is also characterized by great editing, first in the tennis match in which Granger has to finish the match and waylay Walker before he plants evidence convicting Granger at the crime scene. And also in that final climax with a fight on a runaway carousel between Walker and Granger.

Strangers On A Train is Hitchcock at his best, it should not be missed and ought to be required viewing when film classes study editing.


I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.

The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.

For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.

It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the 'cult' inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.

The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the 'truth,' as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.

It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.

Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.

The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.

It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of ****


T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.

Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.

This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.

Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors.


This is the epitome of fairytale! The villains are completely wicked and the heroes are refreshingly pure. Danes, Deniro,and Pfieffer are wonderful as well as the new actor who plays the role of Tristan. Outstanding performances, delightful magic, funny and dramatic, and a perfect fairytale ending make this film absolutely fabulous! I'm not so sure all content is appropriate for younger children but for an older audience, there are plenty of hilarious subtleties! The previews do not do this movie justice! My fiancé and I were quite skeptical but were so thrilled we had taken a chance on this movie that I can only hope to assure anyone on the fence about this movie to give it a try!


Growing up in a multi racial neighborhood back in the 20's and 30's, I grew up very close to most of the Italian families living there. This move brought back so many pleasant memories. this is a movie most people would like who enjoy seeing more true to life movies.


Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.

None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.

Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.

The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.

My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.

Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest.


I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the 'barbarian brothers'. This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the 'barbarian brothers' where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl!

Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue.

I definitely recommend this film.


This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.


Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....


the one and only season has just aired here in Australia and i thought it was absolutely brilliant! i love it! all the story lines are so good! and its a much more realistic view on teen and family life today. yet it still kept strong family values of sticking together and being there for each other. their problems were real, and it really drew you into the show. the show is basically about this family called 'the Days' and their lives. the family consisted of Abby Day (mum), Jack Day (dad), Natalie Day (sporty daughter), Cooper Day (outsider son), and Nathan Day (boy genius son). each episodes a day of their life, with coopers perspective on things throughout it. i loved cooper his insight through out the show was just great. he was by far my favorite character. it ended with so many things it could've continued with, I'm really sad another season wasn't made. it was a great show I'm gonna miss it.


This had to be one of the worst films ever. When Kate shows up and Jed is with a bunch of guys and they all start clapping...so Hollywood. Another bad scene was when Kate was running her hands over the pavement it appeared that she was examining the texture of the pavement. Andie's acting is so bad in this film - I could not connect with them or feel there love for each other. The other 2 women however were very good and overshadowed Andie. Anyway this was such a campy movie. I usually like these type of films but I just couldn't get into this film. Too many unlikely situations and again Andie's acting didn't help the film. Also, she is all gums. Lancome must put her makeup on with a putty knife because she looks glamorous in the commericals.


I was wondering when someone would try turning that whole Matamoros mess into a goreporn pic. Anyroad, here's a few things I learned about Mexico from watching this film.

~All Mexican Women Are Super Hot - Remember that little desert town in Unearthed? Yeah, well, this must be it's Mexican sister city. Don't even bother with the hookers, just put a few smooth moves on the hot bartender. She'll be just as hot as the prostitutes and probably doesn't have any kids as well!

~Half of Mexico is controlled by insane Satan-worshiping Palo Mayombe cultists. ¡Ay, caramba! The other half, as everyone here in the U.S. knows, is run by drug dealers. Fortunately, this doesn't much interfere with the sex-tourisim trade and our ultra-low wage factories down there.

~Mexican cops are useless. Don't go to them. Go to the nearest occult bookstore and ask the hot chick behind the counter what happened to your vanished friend. She'll be way more help than the cops.

~When you're being gruesomely tortured by the aforementioned bloodthirsty cultists, don't go reciting the Psalms or any part of the Bible, really. You'll just mess up the mojo.


I don't know how anyone could hate this movie. It is so funny. It took a unique mind to come up with this storyline. It's not your typical alien movie. These aliens are so stupid and confused. You need to rent it at least once.


If you've ever wanted to see a film that stresses style over substance, this is for you. To me, Son de Mar is beautiful to SEE, but there's precious little substance, unless mawkish, melodramatic, manipulative love yarns turn you on. This may be one of those famous 'chick flicks' you've heard so much about.

We're about half-way through this film before anything really happens: Ulises (Jordi Molla) goes out to sea looking for tuna, and doesn't come back, leaving his wife Martina (Leonor Watling) and son to fend for themselves. Then, in a furious six minutes of screen time, they bury Ulises, Martina gets married again, and her son grows into mid-childhood. This rapid transposition is jarring, to say the least, and very sloppy: after 40 minutes of more or less hanging around, we're suddenly into a full-blown melodrama, all in six minutes. I think this is called wayward narrative pacing.

Five years later, Ulises (as in the wandering superhero Ulysses; get it?), returns to his 'Penelope' (Watling) only to find she's married to Sierra (Eduard Fernandez), an inexplicably wealthy guy (what does he DO to earn all that dough?) who inexplicably keeps crocodiles as pets. When Martina, in great anger, questions Ulises about his absence, he tells her that he'll take her to the island of Sumatra someday and she'll understand EVERYTHING.

And here's the thing: he DOESN'T take her to the island of Sumatra. The reference just dies somewhere in the script. He DOESN'T really explain where he was and why he ignored his wife and child for five years. He DOESN'T acquit himself as an honourable guy, and the movie DOESN'T fill in the plot holes that are staring at us for at least half of the film. I can only assume that director Bigas Luna wants us to fill in the story lines with the mystical clues (fish, reptiles, the sea) he offers through breathtaking cinematography and evasive dialogue. It just doesn't work. The narrative 'arc' on this film ends up looking more like a wobbly clothesline.

I'm sure Jordi Molla is a good actor, but I just couldn't buy his Ulises as any kind of hero (which is what the original Ulysses was supposed to be). With moist sensuality, he spouts a short stanza of identical poetry from Virgil roughly 2,000 times and each and every time it excites Martina to explosive orgasm. This guy should be rented out to reinvigorate stale marriages. I'm sure Virgil would be impressed. He didn't get laid that often, as I understand it.

This poetic 'device' figures prominently in the film, and I had no choice but to assume it was a gender reversal of Ulysses' famous 'siren song' (i.e. beautiful maidens singing seductively to far-off sailors, who were doomed if they answered the, well, siren call). If this is what Bigas Luna is up to, you can see the problem -- he's offering convoluted symbolism in a snatch-and-grab attempt at High Art. Once again, it just doesn't work, at least in my eyes.

Watling is a beautiful and magnetic young actor, but she gives us a character here who doesn't seem to have much intellectual or even romantic depth. It's beyond me how she could desperately fall in love with a guy who sports a for-rent sign on his face (as in vacant), oily 1960s-style hair that looks more like seaweed, and one of those trendy 21st-century 'beards' (you know, four days' growth, no more, no less). He's SUPPOSED to be a dreamy kind of guy (I think), but those eyes of his suggest he might be suffering more from overexposure to a preposterous script.

But, don't despair, this film is great to look at. Just don't try to connect the dots on the red herrings or think too much about what you're hearing in the way of dialogue. You can do a lost of fast-forwarding on this film (particularly in the first 40 minutes) and you really won't miss much.


This is the last time I rent a video without checking in at the IMDB reviews. The Limey is directed by Steven Soderbergh who also wrote wrote the truly awful Nightwatch with Ewan Macgregor and directed such trash as Out of Sight with the anti-talented Jennifer Lopez. Terence Stamp is a fine actor and it is a shame he involved himself in such a bad film. There is frequent confusing editing that seems like it was a last minute decision in order to make up for the lack or story, filming and just plain common sense. This film does everything wrong. What were they thinking?


The Wooden Horse was one of the first 'great' escape stories from World War II, telling the true story of Eric Williams and others in their escape from Stalag-Lufft III in October of 1943. I really like this film, but had to by it on VHS from Amazon in England and get it transferred from PAL format in the U.S. I read the book when I was in hight school, after having seen a portion of the film in the early 60's on T.V. The taunt drama of Peter and John trying to escape from Germany during the war is more realistic than the treck of the escapes portrayed in the Great Escape. This film is a lost treasure, that should be made more available to American audiences.


This is not a movie you watch for entertainment, at least most people I know would not.

It's portraits the cruelty to both body and mind that happen in a war pretty well, the characters seem plausible, especially because you 'read their minds', something more often found in books and rarely in movies, however done very well in this piece. I would place it next to 'All quiet on the western front' and 'Die Brücke' in terms of leaving a lasting impression.

I wish I could screen it at school, along with the other two movies - however finding a copy of it showed to be pretty hard - which is a shame.


Even though it doesn't really matter to the film, this is a Creation myth. God (a convulsing, bloody figure in a chair) cuts his organs out with a straight razor and dies in His own filth. Mother Earth rises from his corpse and impregnates herself with his seed, giving birth to Man. It is, however highly unlikely for you to figure any of this out without reading a synopsis first, and it's not especially important to the film that you do, as it's more a surrealistic art-house imagery thing, all in inky, processed black and white. A sick, bleak atmosphere is created with the stark photography and minimal sounds (mostly water dripping, groans, scrapes, etc.) but each scene goes on a bit too long and so does the film as a whole. This could've been great as a short film, and the God killing himself scene was excellent and extremely creepy, especially being the first thing you see, but it's hard to be patient when it goes on for so long and you don't even know what you're seeing for much of the time.

Still, a good film for the original style, images, atmosphere and content.


Really, really bad slasher movie. A psychotic person escapes from an asylum. Three years later he kills a sociology professor, end of scene. One semester yesterday later (hey, that's what the title card said) a new sociology professor is at the school. She makes friends with another female sociology professor who works there, and starts dating another professor. The students are all bored, as are we.

There are a number of title cards indicating how much time has passed. Scenes are pretty short, and cut to different characters somewhere else, making for little progression of any kind. A lot of scenes involve characters walking and talking, or sitting and talking, and serve little purpose. Despite the passage of time, many of the characters are always wearing the same clothing. Sometimes the unclear passage of time means when we see a body for the second time, we ask ourselves: how long has that body been there? And also, at least one of the dead people don't seem to have been missed by others.

The killer manages to kill one person by stabbing her in the breast, another by stabbing him in the crotch, and another by slicing her forehead. Is his knife poisoned or something?

The video box cover has a cheerleader: there aren't any in the movie. The rear cover has a photo of someone in a graduation cap and gown menacing a group of women in a dorm room. The central redhead in the photo is in the movie, but nobody ever wears such an outfit, and there is no such scene. The killer is strictly one-on-one.


Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.


Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.

The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.

I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.

Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!


Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.

It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.

The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.

Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.

All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film.

If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.


STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.

I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.


Motorama viewers should already by keen on other offbeat b-grade desert-based films such as Bagdad Cafe or Repo Man (which more or less takes place in the desert). It also models some of the bizarre humor (and especially eccentric trail of characters) of writer Joseph Minion's comedy, 'After Hours.' In a sort of desert roadtrip fantasy, a metaphor of temptation and redemption, Gus (played well by Jordan Christopher Michael), a clever 10 year-old boy cashes in his piggy bank, steals a Mustang, and runs away from his grossly neglecting parents. It begins as a trip through salvation (which is apparent in the scenes with John Diehl), but once he becomes hooked on a scratch-off game called Motorama, he becomes easily tainted by temptation and looses his childish innocence. He travels from one crazy fictional state to another concocting ways of getting Motorama cards from participating gas stations, just enough so that he might spell out the prize winning word M-O-T-O-R-A-M-A and be eligible for the $500 million cash prize.

Along the way, he is embattled with dozens of strange characters such as Flea who plays a high strung busboy, Meatloaf who plays a crazy biker, and Mary Woronov and Sandy Baron (a Seinfeld regular) as two violent kidnappers.

The DVD rerelease can be very deceptive, as have previous attempts to sell this film to the non-cult market first with taglines comparing it to Home Alone and Thelma & Louise. The newest calling it a love story with the tagline implying that the film is about Jordan Michael Christopher on an adventure to meet the girl of his dreams...which, despite the size of her picture on the DVD cover, is actually only about a 1 second cameo by Drew Barrymore as the fantasy girl that Gus dreams about. Why didn't they just market it for what it was? Thought it may seem totally bizarre on first viewing, it is actually a well-designed narrative.

Motorama is great material for fans of strange b-grade comedies. This was quite an interesting story, and particularly because of the strength of its lead actor--Jordan Michael Christopher (who unfortunately has few other screen credits of note)--and the clever metaphor inherent in the plot. Hopefully its re-release on DVD will make it an easier find for cult fans.


Okay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.


I like the shepherd! Sure the acting wasn't good but the fight scenes were nice. Van damme throws some nice kicks and so does adkins. The story was average. A Texas cop battles smugglers. This movie did everything a van damme movie should do which is martial arts and action. Van damme was never a good actor. I think this movie is better than van dammmes last 2. If you're looking for an Oscar winning performance you're not gonna get it here but if you're looking for action and martial arts then this movie is for you. Scott adkins is an amazing martial artist and unfortunately the public has gotten tired of martial art superstars but his movies in this movie are great. Van damme delivers strong kicks and it's good to see him performing martial arts again since he has not in his last 4 or 5 movies. This movie is definitely worth watching if you're a van damme fan.


I would have given this movie a 1, but I laughed so hard, so many times, that I had to give it a little credit, in the off off off off chance the film was Supposed to be funny. A movie so bad you'll think chimps wrote it. You'll wish chimps had written it. Dialogue so canned that only it and the cockroaches will survive the coming nuclear holocaust. The movie Exaggerates its awfulness by intersplicing scenes from the Original Carrie (a really good film) into scenes from this one. Like intersplicing scenes from Taxi Driver into Baby Geniuses. Do not rent it alone, as you will NOT enjoy the experience. You will need someone next to you to confirm the badness of what you are viewing. Worst actress of the Millenium goes to poor poor Amy Irving as the stone-faced, monotone, disastrously wooden school counselor. Worst movie of the year so far (see also _Arlington Road_). --FRINK-3


Young Quaids fake accent was difficult to accept at times.

The show was billed as mystery/suspence but should have been listed as a romance.

Don't rent this one if you are sleepy, it will knock you out.


This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.

Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.

In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.

Clearly a 10. Well done!


The End of Suburbia is an important documentary about modern dependence on cheap energy and the coming peak in world oil production. The film is an excellent introduction to the peak oil phenomenon, and includes interviews with experts like adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. Mathew Simmons, author Richard Heinberg, 'Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World' and author Michael T. Klare, 'Blood and Oil - The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.

'Economic growth is predicated upon more electricity. Electricity is predicated on hydro-carbon energy. Period. And Mathew Simmons made a very clear statement, he said: 'Future growth is not possible'. And for a guy from his background to say that was one of the most.. that's like the catholic church saying the earth is round before Galileo' - Michael C. Ruppert

'The peak has happened. And now, instead of being prophets, we're now historians.' - Kenneth Deffeyes


A wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.

But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generatedbadly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.

So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.


The plot starts out interesting, however, towards the end too many die in too short a time, turning the thriller-mystery aspect of the story into a slaughter.

The only true highlights were Adam Beach and Jürgen Prochnow, who were once again their excellent selves. Nice try with an inappropriate last third, though a good ending.


IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.

I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.

This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to 'make people think'. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.

It made me think alright. It made me think, 'I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back.'

I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.

I am not one of them.


It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. 'Cypher' is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in 'Cypher' supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from 'Tube') carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem 'Seconds'  starring Rock Hudson  as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. 'Cypher' is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time.


'Head' is one of those films you'll have a lot of trouble convincing your friends to see, but once they do they'll fall in love with it. I don't know how many times this has happened to me. This film is just so funny and bizarre, really a deconstruction of everything the Monkees had been up to this point in their career. A lot the credit goes to Bob Rafelson who pretty much ended the Monkee's career with this film. My guess is he wanted to get out of directing the TV show and get into features, which he did in a big way after this one. Micky Dolenz is absolutely hilarious. I can't believe he didn't have a second life as a comic actor after this film. This film has a lot of great cameos and a lot of wonderful psychedelic nonsense. I feel like the reputation of this film is continuing to build and it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually becomes a full on cult classic


Why wasn't this voted for Best Picture of 1998? This has to be the best movie ever. It makes something like Citzen Kane look like utter crap, come on, Citzen Kane wasn't even in color! I love this movie, it has to be the best movie I've ever put money down on. I am still shocked that it wasn't nominated for ANYTHING!

 If 10 is the highest you can give it, I give it 20!


So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is 'investigating' to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..

the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.


Fata Morgana, the 1971 documentary-like film by German filmmaker extraordinaire Werner Herzog, filmed over several years in the late 1960s, is one of those rare DVDs that should be listened to with the commentary turned on. It is a visual feast of North African (mostly Saharan) imagery that is timeless. You simply could not tell that it was made over thirty-five years ago. The soundtrack to the film, including German classical music (Mozart and Handel), and rock music by Blind Faith and Leonard Cohen, also lends its timeless quality. The narration by three different German narrators (German film historian Lotte Eisner, Eugen Des Montagnes, and Wolfgang von Ungern-Sternberg) is solid, and Herzog goes on and on of Eisner's import to this project, himself, and film history, but the English speaker of the translation, James William Gledhill, has a voice that seems downright deific, which lends itself far more perfectly to this project, even though much of the text- in either language, is rather superfluous. Yes, the faux Biblical sounds of the Popul Vuh Mayan creation myth in the film's first part, Creation, is interesting, but the text Herzog wrote for the remaining two parts (Paradise and The Golden Age), along with quotes from a German poet Herzog names as Manfred Eigendorf, almost seems a satire of the first part's somber tone. The film, it seems was pieced together during the shooting of several other Herzog projects concurrently- the fictive Even Dwarfs Started Small, and the documentaries The Land Of Silence And Darkness and The Flying Doctors Of East Africa, but these projects' rejected material only add to the beauty of this film, such as aerial scenes of a flamingo mating lake from afar that give one an eerie unearthly sense, one which Herzog crows about in his commentary. This unearthly feel is present right from the film's start of several airplanes landing on a desert runway, with their images getting successively blurrier as the heat from the ground rises, and increases the distorting waves that mar the images. That this film was influential in the Quatsi films of Godfrey Reggio is an understatement. But, whereas Reggio is content to just toss images at you, Herzog has an ability that only American filmmaker Terrence Malick also has: to make a wholly self-contained vocabulary out of the juxtaposition of images and words, and one dependent upon an emotion-first thrust. Analysis can fail when brought to such endeavors. Herzog often does not understand even why his art is great. The best he does often is wholly unconscious and mesmeric. This is why his contempt for the Lowest Common Denominator pap of Hollywood is openly stated on the commentary.

Perhaps the best illustration of this comes in a scene that, on the commentary, Herzog tells us followed a severe drought in Cameroon. It shows the jerkied carcasses of cattle, and Herzog describes the unbearable stench. Yet, the viewer can sense this all from the images, the blackness of the sun dried portions of animals, and the blanched bones. Yet, even in that commentary, Herzog focuses on the stench, not any deeper meaning. He is content to let you imbue and interpret what you will into and of his work, such as the almost erotically feminized shapes of sand dunes, which recalls a scene from Ingmar Bergman's Hour Of The Wolf, where Max Von Sydow, runs his hand over Ingrid Thulin's beautiful nude body's curves. But, the archetypal image in this film, which symbolizes much of Herzog's career, is of a mirage of a faraway car driving back and forth on the surface of what appears to be a lake. It is deep, hypnotic, illusive, elusive, supernatural, yet real, just as Herzog, the believer who came from a family of militant atheists, is. But, then, like everything else, it ends.


The words 'Swedish' and 'Action movie' do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.

Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.

This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no 'ups', just 'downs'. So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the 'cool' special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.

And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.

I rate this 4/10 for effort.


When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ('cryonoids'), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, 'The Chilling' also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.

Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his 'assistant' because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.

Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then 'The Chilling' is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in 'T2' has got nothing on 'The Chilling' in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.

How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like 'Here they come', 'Do something', 'Hurry!'. The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.

The only frightening part of 'The Chilling' is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that 'the film you are about to see could happen in your own community'. As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10.


I've been trying to write a plot summary for several minutes now and can't seem to do it. But with a movie as bad as Night of the Blood Beast the plot hardly matters. An astronaut crash lands and is believed dead. His body later reanimates, but is found to be carrying the embryos of some strange alien life-form. But how did they get there? And where's the alien that implanted the strange creatures in Maj. John Corcoran's body?

IMDb lists the runtime for Night of the Blood Beast at 62 minutes. Is that right? 62 minutes? It had to be longer than that. It felt interminable to me. Even with the MST3K commentary (which was very funny by the way), the actual movie felt much, much longer. And it's pretty much a snoozer from beginning to end. I like a lot of these alien invasion type movies of the 50s, but not this one. It failed to grab my interest on any level. The baby aliens were too silly looking to be taken seriously, the titular blood beast was pathetic, and none of the characters did anything for me. Add to that the usual low-budget Roger Corman trappings and you've got a real loser of a movie.


I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in 'notting hills' or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski 'three colors : white'... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw 'before sunset' (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw 'before sunrise' and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France


this film had a lot of potential - it's a great story and has the potential to be very creepy. but of course tim burton doesn't really do creepy films, he does wacky cartoonish films. and i usually like tim burton's stuff. but i thought this film was really weak. the best thing about the film (and it is actually worth seeing just for this) was the art direction - the film has an amazing intangible quality to it. the script was not good. it was boring in parts and confusing in other parts, and there was no building of characters. i never really cared that people were having their heads lopped off by a headless being. i thought johnny depp had a good thing going with his approach to the character, but given that the script was weak he couldn't go too far with it - and i was very irritated by the attempts at a slight accent on his and christina ricci's parts.

anyway, it is sadly not a great film and not worth seeing unless you are interested in the art direction.


A very interesting plot of the film based on the novel 'Waltz into Darkness' of the writer Cornell Woolrich. It is a drama rather than a film noir, which tries to send a message that love changes your own life, i.e. your love to any person and the love you received from him/her. A wealthy man really changed his life for love, while his partner finally understood that he was the only one that loved her. Belmondo played well as usual, while a somewhat still young Michel Bouquet played his eternal role of a detective or police agent. Frankly Bouquet was not so impressive in this film, but less than that was the performance of Catherine Deneuve. She was not so convincingly in her role as a prostitute then lover/wife of Louis Mahé (Belmondo). For those who like to visit the world, the film offers the occasion to see part of the Ascension Island, and also Lyon city in France.


Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.


If you loved the 1993 (erotic, sci-fiction)cyborg film 'Nemesis', then you'll love this one. I loved it the minute the Elvis Pompadoured hero pulls out a samurai sword during a shoot-out. Like 'Nemesis' its takes place in a post apocalyptic slum of the future. Both are police thrillers where the well armed hero must take on well armed rebels, to solve a conspiracy by the powers that be against the unwashed masses. but thats where the similarities ends. The ambiguous mayor in dead or alive tries to keep the masses sedate on the drugs he sells them. The rebels aided by mercenaries and a cyborg, try to brake his suffocating hold on his subjects. After several failed attempts to brake the rebels back, he sends his top cop to assassinate the rebels. This movie follows the track of most action adventure but isn't afraid to color outside the line.


'The Planet' is an astounding piece of film making. For a mere £8000 Stirton Production have turned out one of the most original sci-fi films for a long time.

Starring the physically intimidating Mike Mitchell, the film is a mix of great special effects, strong storytelling and well planned action. From the opening space battle, to the pounding finale, everything about this film appears well above it's budget.

To start with the special effects, while certainly not 'Revenge Of The Sith' standard, they are on level, if not above, the likes of Babylon 5 and Farscape. And for a snip of a price as well. The detail and the movement is superb, and captures the imagination from the off. The design of everything, ships, weapons, entities is second to none. The imagination and creativity involved is a real surprise for a film of this budget.

Another surprise was the strength of the story, and the arc it takes. There are a few twists and turn, most of which are well written into the script, surprising and well played out. I was surprised that, two years in the making and first imagined 15 years ago, how relevant some aspects of the story are to today's society. With the happenings around the world, there may be a certain resonance with the lengths the mercenaries are forced to go to in order to survive.

Even the sounds effects are spot on, as is the atmospheric music. The use of light and costume add further to the professional look. Balmedie Beach in Aberdeen looks a desolate and lonely place.

In all honesty this film looks 10, if not 100, times the budget spent, and that's testament to a creative, hard working team of people, from the director, to the cast, to the effects via the producer and sound team. Wonderful effort, I recommend you get your hand on a copy ASAP


This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...

The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.

To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world?


I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.

The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important / moving / deep moment, ok!'.

Don't waste your time.


John Leguizamo's one man show is both funnier and more involving than most movies you'll see. A number of devices, such as slide projectors, are used to enhance the story, but this is essentially good old-fashioned performance art. In particular, check out his hilarious rendition of 'I Will Survive'. *Highly* recommended.


This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact.

Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up.

The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing.

It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie.

The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.


The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10.


Jacknife is a masterpiece of the 80's. It's a movie that breaths through amazing acting and a very interesting directing touch. In Jacknife both lovers of European and American cinema can find things to relate on. The screenplay is very compelling and full of beautiful characters. Ed Harris is giving one of the greatest performances up to date. He portrays his alcoholic hero superbly making us feel his broken heart in each line, in each move. Robert De Niro makes us once again think of him as one of the greatest actors of all time in one of the simplest but also most realistic performances in his career. Jacknife is never getting boring as it shows its heroes clear of any typical Hollywood's typical character elements. After the war none is a hero. Everybody is a loser, and this movie is about that simple truth. None can mend up his pieces after a war, just like the heroes of this movie. Jacknife is about the diseases of the soul that war creates. Simply magnificent movie.


A very high-standard Columbo story which was actually the first filmed episode of the long-running series but was originally transmitted second (after 'Murder By The Book').

Robert Culp makes his first of three appearances as the guest murderer in the series and plays the owner of a private detective agency, who blackmails the wife (Patricia Crowley) of a rich, highly influential businessman (played very sympathetically by Ray Milland) after he falsifies a report, in her favour, after it is discovered she was having an affair. The wife later rebels against the blackmail scheme but is killed in a fit of rage....

A very satisfying episode in many respects, particularly as the plot is so strongly set-up and subsequently developed and also because of the rare Columbo ingredient that the crime is an unpremeditated killing. The whole thing is further enhanced when the widowed husband uses the murderer to assist Columbo in his investigations: a feature that facilitates numerous good quality scenes, particularly in the first sequence when the three central characters meet and Columbo's crucially deceptive qualities are wonderfully in evidence.

Directed with flair by Bernard L. Kowalski and acted to an appropriately high level, this really set the tone for whole series (since 'Murder By the Book' was let down by a poor ending). The script by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link is precise, well-structured and well-thought-out and is underpinned by a steady, productive pace and meaningful sequences which really exhibit the unpredictability of the story. Ultimately, the finale fittingly epitomises that Columbo has always been one step ahead of the murderer.

Overall, this is a very fine piece of detective work for Columbo, and strongly suggests that the production team had worked positively and constructively to render a polished Columbo story.


I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.

You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a 'personal note' from the Director, asking for the audience's 'understanding' for the 'many challenges' facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this 'film' unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged 'movie'.


as a 'physically challenged' person (god, how i hate that phrase) i just happened to catch this on cable where there was absolutely nothing else to watch - overall, it was a fantastic movie. yes, i was a little disappointed upon finding out that neither actor is disabled, and yes, i was a little disappointed that more of the movie wasn't filmed from the 'true' point of view of the disabled (can you imagine what it's like always being the tallest person in the room and then having to live the rest of your life with a view of nothing but other people's asses and crotches? having to always wait for the idiot to stop reading the newspaper in the only handicapped stall, enduring everyone else's rude bodily expulsions while you wait?). and the scene with him driving the car was absolutely me! been there, done that, literally. but the movie was true enough to matter - while i've never lived in a home or assisted residence, there were plenty of times throughout the movie where i found myself nodding and saying to myself 'yeah, that's true.... that's happened to me....' what impressed me is that some of the commentors on this board expressed the fact that the movie made them view life a little differently and with a little more insight as the lives of a silent 'minority' - can't ask more than that out of a movie, that it makes you think and view life differently, so by virtue of that alone, the movies was tremendously successful. should be required viewing of every kid in junior high school.

pretty much for every person that's severely physically disabled, independence is one of, if not the most important focus of our daily lives, from working to socializing to recreating. for those of you who felt the movie was 'cliched,' try living our life for a single day - you'll see that the movie was 'cliched' because..... it's true. the challenges the actors faced only skimmed the surface of what happens to us every day - if we're lucky, we experience the same emotional and personal growth that the three characters (including the girl) did. every day presents obstacles for us to overcome - it's just that there's no swelling, dramatic music to accompany our lives, unless it's in our ipods.... lol!


I always thought the Batman Returns was a great sequel to Batman. The story was an interesting one and Danny Devito, Christopher Walken and Micheal Keaton gave great performances. Plus lets face it, Tim Burton was a genius and did the comic book character more justice than Joel Screwmacher ever did.

Plot: Oswald Cobblepot also know as The Penguin(played By Danny Devito) is abandoned by his parents as child for being deformed. He uses this as an excuse to masquerade a sinister plot to abduct the first born children of Gotham with the help of his goons(Red Triangle Gang) and a very shady tycoon Max Shreck(played by Christopher Walken). Max Shreck later makes Penguin the mayor of Gotham. Selina Kyle(Michelle Pfeiffer) is pushed out of a window by Max Shreck and is revived by cats. Later on she develops cat-like qualities and seeks to destroy Max Shreck and Batman. Her reasons for wanting to destroy the dark knight are not explained.

Opinion: Batman Returns is a classic. It has a darker feel in terms of atmosphere. Tim Burton always had a knack for making grim backgrounds look appealing. Micheal Keaton is still sharp as Batman. Danny Devito steals the show as Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin. When you think about it, he would have made a better Violator for the movie Spawn than John Leguizamo. Michelle Pfeiffer gave Catwoman more personality than Halle Berry ever could. Max Shreck is one of Christopher Walken's best roles. The main reason why I like Batman Returns is that its fun. Its not only creative but its also fun. Something a lot of big budget movies these days sorely lack. The Batman series goes to the dogs after Tim Burton decided to do no more. You don't believe me, look at Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Thank god that Christopher Nolan breathed life back into the series with Batman Begins.


Congo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.


Having finally caught up with this 'masterpiece,' it strikes me that it must have seemed terribly clever, in its day. It's French, arty, under-played to the point of agony, and ultimately downbeat. But viewed from the vantage of 37 years in the future, it's also just a bit vacuous, pretentious and unsatisfying.

Others have summarized the story, but I don't think anyone has pointed out the dramatic flaw at the heart of this film: the lead characters, Corey and Vogel, really don't deserve what they get. They play square within their code, never harm anyone who didn't ask for it, and show great courage and initiative. Moreover, Corey in particular is victimized by his former gangland 'friend,' who stole his girl and who repeatedly tries to have him killed, apparently just because he (Corey) dared to 'borrow' a few thousand francs. These are guys who really ought to be due for a break! Instead, things go far worse for them than they really need to, within the logic of the story.

One might contend that this is the whole point: that the real villains never get caught; that they collude with the police as needed, sell out their friends, and always come out on top. But that's not shown either. Corey's old gangster friend is not shown colluding with the police. Nor is he shown gloating over his victory. In fact, after materializing several times when he's needed, he's nowhere to be seen at the conclusion, leaving a dramatic tension (his feud with Corey) entirely unresolved!

Nonetheless, I'd say this film is well worth seeing for its beautiful photography, its slow, deliberate pacing, its great deadpan performances, its elaborate heist sequence, and its encapsulation of the art-film style of the late 1960s.


This is one of those unfortunate films that suffered an even more sad, unfortunate death at the box office. I saw this film at a local art cinema,in revival form,shortly after it tanked in mainstream cinemas. It certainly deserves to be approached a second time (or even a third). Sandra B. takes it to the limit by doing spoken word & taking on some well known songs in this piece (her version of Hank William's 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' could easily move you to tears). Maybe someday, audiences will be ready to take this film a bit more seriously (but not without some well placed laughs,too). The film moves at a brisk pace (thanks to some nice editing),so that some viewers will not find it stale & boring. Perhaps a revival is just down the pipeline.


This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clichéd Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen.