This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The 'wolf', if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)

The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.

Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?

Overall boring and laughable horror.


I'm not going to say too much as this movie isn't worth the effort. To put it simply the movie absolutely sucked! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The storyline was stupid, you couldn't follow what was happening, the characters were so annoying especially the main guy. I wanted someone to kill that kid and put him and the movie out of it's misery.

Very, very bad.


This movie definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.

I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie cliché cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the 'worn-out cop on the edge' so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.

The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.

But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT??

From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really recommend it.


This will not likely be voted best comedy of the year, a few too many coincidences and plot holes. However we are talking about a movie where a hit-man and a white bread salesman become buddies so a few vagaries shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Brosnan is excellent in this role, gone is the wooden James Bond (a role he was wasted in). If he can maintain this kind of quality I hope he continues to make comedies. Greg Kinnear is also excellent as Brosnan's straight man. I've read a few negative comments in here about Hope Davis but I thought she was quite good as a mousy housewife with a dark side buried deep within. There are lots of good chuckles as Brosnan sleazes his way through and a few scenes where I nearly died laughing. My father (a consultant) nearly lost it when Julian describes himself as a 'facilitator'. Much like 'Grosse Pointe Blank', another hit-man comedy, the humour can be very dark. If you are in to that be prepared to enjoy yourself.


So first things first..

Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.

Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.

In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.

Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.

My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..

Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.

overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general.


OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles.

Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as 'manos the hands of fate.'

The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.

Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch.


I am a back Batman movie and TV fan. I loved the show (new and old) and I loved all the movies. But this movie is not as great as some people were hopeing it to be. In my opinon, it is a big let down. I think the problem was it had no drama. Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker had a lot of drama. and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero had some drama too. Also, I think this movie is to light for Batman. The only scene that seems a little dark is the big fight with Bane at the end. Anyways, it's an ok Batman movie. But I would just rent it.


A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.

Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, 'Death Bed: The Bed That Eats' is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book 'Nightmare USA.' While watching it, you wonder the following

-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?

-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?

-What the hell am I watching?

'Death Bed' really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.

In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much.


I was watching the Perfect Storm, and thought about another Wolfgang Peterson film which is much better--this one. Although certainly not based on a true story, In the Line of Fire is how a movie should be made. It has a terrific story with a great cast. Malkovich won a well-deserved Oscar for his performance as the creepy killer with a grudge against the government he served all too well. Eastwood is good as the tortured Secret Service and Russo is easy on the eyes. If you haven't seen this, definitely rent it or buy it as I did. Definitely one of the best crime thrillers of the past decade. 9/10


(This review does not necessarily expose the plot of the movie, however it may change one's expectations of the movie and thus make for a less enjoyable experience.)

Ever rented a scary movie, expecting to be on the edge of your seat in fear, and instead ended up howling in laughter at each and every stupid turn of the plot? This movie had so many opportunities to impress and actually scare the viewer. It was cut poorly and jumped around too much; making references to the past seem more like excuses as to why the plot was heading in its particular direction. The writers must not have thought about how the potentially excellent plot should have been carried out, because the poor construction of time throughout the plot is discouraging to the viewer and makes the movie increasingly tiring to watch.

Almost worse than the writers having abused what could have been an excellent and classic thriller was the fact that it gradually relied on cheap tactics for a scare. The acting didn't make it scary, and the situations hardly made it scary, therefore it needed a few dark scenes with things jumping out at you to make it worthwhile. Even those were predictable.

Not even the gore could've saved the plot, and it rivals the gore of the successful thriller Se7en.

Speaking of Se7en, I feel like Saw tried to follow Se7en's incredibly fascinating psychological theme, but failed miserably in doing so. I was terribly disappointed in the lack of analysis and plot structure surrounding the psychology of the killer. The beginning scenes tease the viewer into thinking that this is a psychological thriller; believe me, it is far from that.

Oh, did I mention poor acting? At first, Cary Elwes seems makes a convincing performance; however, this completely deteriorates at the most crucial parts of the plot. I was left in tears of laughter at this performance, which is worthy of a Razzie. The performance of Leigh Whannell is also terrible and too played-out, although not as bad as the performance by Elwes, and the big red flag with this is that Whannell is also a writer for the movie.

The end of Saw could never make up for having lost the entire middle of it, and that is what makes it a huge failure. It was an opportunity wasted, and I have no clue as to why Monica Potter and Danny Glover chose to take roles in this movie.

I am mad at myself for wasting money on just renting it. It was definitely not worth the $4, and in the future I will definitely avoid seeing anything having to do with Elwes, Whannell or James Wan. The big tragedy in this is not that it lacked basis to its plot, it's that the great potential storyline was thrown away and poor acting added insult to injury. I'll avoid the poor puns involving the title and just conclude with this: don't watch this movie.


I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.

This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.


This is one of the strangest things on TV. It is set in a bizarrely underpopulated Midlands superb called Leatherbridge which seems to be the dullest place in the country. It features a bar with no visible staff or customers, a university with no students, a police station with no criminals and a doctors' surgery with more doctors than patients. The story lines are dire - every episode revolves round a bizarre medical issue acted out by a variety of brummie extras who can never actually act, and for some reason the doctor always ends up round their house solving their problem. Pretty entertaining for its pure comedy value, but I cannot believe that this thing actually masquerades as a serious drama. Bonkers.


This movie certainly proves, that also the good Americans can do terribly good propaganda. No questions being asked, no comments being made on power abuse or police terror, when James Stewart, solid and convincing as always, solves all the stories from Dillinger to 5th Column more or less singlehandedly. June Allyson as his regular love interest holds up the family values and E.J. Hoover is executive producer.And children or non guilty bystanders are never harmed, when the professionals execute. Not to speak of civil rights, which are never broken or homes, which are never intruded. And if the FBI service would not be enough, Steward also gives his son's life for the country in WW II. Perfectly made, if you wouldn't know better....


When I was a kid of 8, I always watched movies and television that i wasn't supposed to, and this was one of them.

It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and it has to be the funniest movie I have ever seen in my life, the acting is excellent, they Don't Make Comedies Like This Anymore these days (movies that are ACTUALLY funny and make you laugh without resorting to excrement or some type of vomit-inducing body fluid as in those retarded Judd Apatow movies starring unfunny non-actors like Seth Rogen, barf).

This movie is a classic with actors who can actually act, and deserve all the accolades.


Ho humm - - - More of nothing. If you are a long-time Rush fan you know what this video contains: loathsome songs from the past, the 'BIG 3' hits from the 80's and their 'last-ditch' efforts to remain contemporary. They do succeed in making fun of themselves by beating the critics to the punch by portraying themselves as 'dinosaurs.' Unfortunately, they FAIL at protecting themselves from embarrassment. Close-ups of their faces only add to the fact that these guys HAVE BEEN.

If you are have been following (as much as you can stomach) the band for a couple of decades from the 70's, then you know there is no new material here. Same old, same OLD: 1) Neil avoids the press, 2) no real behind-the-scenes (Geddy looses his SHOES?! Give me a break! Even HE thinks it's absurd!) 3) no new insights.

A better video would have been to show the CREW setting up for 3 or 4 hours  just let the camera run. And stop changing camera angles every 2 seconds! I understand the director wants to try to do something artsy. But then offer a full concert version of 2 or 3 shots the VIEWER can choose. We know what the band looks like  let us see what WE REALLY want to see.

Do yourself a BIG favor: RENT this movie first.


Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9


I am a member of a canoeing club and I can tell you the truth that Deliverance is synonomous with the peacefulness and tranquility of the experience. As we put our boats into the water, banjoes echo in the back of the conscious mind. This movie is timeless because it waxes philosophical of human's place in nature and technology's effect upon man's relationship with nature. We see it in the bow fishing. We see it in the home made tent. There is also city man's disdain and feeling of superiority to the rural woodsman 'cracker'. The fact that the Banker from Atlanta (Ned Beatty) has 'bad teeth' is meant to put him on the same level with the woodsmen who also have bad teeth. Ultimately, the struggle of life and death supersedes 'civilized man's' suppositives about 'The Law'. This canoe trip ends too soon for the viewer, but alas Not Soon Enough for the characters.


I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!


A CRY IN THE DARK

A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.

Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.

The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.

While the famous line 'A Dingo Took My Baby!' has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.

The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.

The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.

The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.

In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.

More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams 'The dingo took my baby!' watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.

... A ...


Mislead by the terrible lie on the cover, 'fun as American Pie', my girlfriend and I sat in front of the TV waiting for a comedy... and this is definitely not one. You probably won't laugh one time if you're not one of those Jackass-like ever-teeny minds. It's not even an erotic movie, which would at least been something, given that it's about sex...

So, what is this? The erratic plot deals with a guy who wants to lose virginity (zero in originality, I remember 'Losing it' for one) and his gang of friends. The rest of the characters (i.e. the girls) just come and go for no credible reason. Come on, there are even Dwarfs (so simple: 'dwarves are fun ho ho'...) The acting is very TV-like (as is the video look throughout the movie) and definitely amateur in the case of most of the girls...

Awful movie. Amateurish, badly produced, and over all NOT FUNNY. Kids and teens will love to watch it with friends because of the swearing and sex jokes. Other than that, don't even think of renting this movie.


This movie came and went in the theaters. Due to the nature of it you can see why it wasn't well received. It was unfairly panned because of its subject matter more than the actual film itself. Higher Learning is not spectacular but it was good film that tried to talk about a feared subject in America: racism.

Plot/Story: Higher Learning is mostly centered around Malik(played by Omar Epps), a naive track star who is has to deal with not being fast enough, and a stern professor(played by Laurence Fishburne). He befriends Fudge(Ice Cube) as well as a gorgeous lady named Deja(Tyra Banks). Later on they end up having to deal with some skinheads on campus. Remy(play by Michael Rapaport) is confused kid who ends up befriending some local skinheads on campus. Once they impose their views on him, he becomes as racist as they are.

Opinion: Higher Learning is not without its flaws: Character development is scarce, okay performances by Omar Epps, Tyra Banks and the leader of the skinheads(whose name I forgot), Busta Rhymes doesn't fit in this movie at all. Plus women turning gay after being abused by men was cliché' before this film so you know I didn't like that part of the film with Kristy Swanson. Other than that, this movie wasn't half bad. Laurence Fishburne was good as Professor Phipps(even though I could do without the accent), Fudge was Ice Cube's best performance and Michael Rapaport was good as the confused Remy. All in all it was one of John Singleton's best movies and is one is one of the reasons I frown on the rubbish he puts out now. Cinema needs more movies like Higher Learning, Mississippi Burning and American History X and less movies like Baby Boy, 2 Fast 2 Furious and a very pointless remake of Shaft.


The American Humane Association, which is the source of the familiar disclaimer 'No animals were harmed...' (the registered trademark of the AHA), began to monitor the use of animals in film production more than 60 years ago, after a blindfolded horse was forced to leap to its death from the top of a cliff for a shot in the film Jesse James (1939). Needless to say, the atrocious act kills the whole entertainment aspect of this film for me. I suppose one could say that at least the horse didn't die in vain, since it was the beginning of the public waking up to the callous and horrendous pain caused animals for the glory of movie making, but I can't help but feel that if the poor animal had a choice, this sure wouldn't have been the path he would have taken!


This movie is awful. At first I thought it may appeal to children, due to the cuddly Ewoks, the fury little people from Stars Wars. After sitting through this monstrosity of a movie, I am certain that not even a 4-year-old would find this movie interesting. The special effects are by far the best of this movie and compare well for other 80ies TV movies. The script is bad, the actors, especially Aubree Miller and unbelievably bad and the flick is so predictable that I still can't believe I was able to not touch the forward button on my VCR. However, I came close to switching this mess off more than once.


Nice attempt and good ideas (redemption of the prostitute, human beings helping each other out,...) but a poor result... The director obviously tried to emulate his French colleague Tran Anh Hung by recreating an ambiance which is suppose to portray Viet Nam... The only problem is that this Viet Nam is long gone and when 'The scent of the green papaya' had a historical background... trying to project this kind of ambiance (muffled sounds and the slow pace of life...) on modern days leaves a feeling of fake. Besides it rapidly creates a sentiment of boredom and the outcome becomes too obvious.

I can only suppose the action takes place in Saigon or Da Nang because that is where Harvey Keitel, ex-marine in the movie, was probably stationed during the war... But in Southern Viet Nam nobody or very few people speak with the clip Northern accent displayed by the actors... Seriously odd even for a bad Vietnamese speaker.

An old poet with leprosy...very doubtful (not a disease for people of his condition), a peasant girl who can read and write elaborate Vietnamese poetry,... even more doubtful...


Who said it had to be believable? Do yourself a favor and turn off your ration before you sit down to view this film. You'll enjoy the experience much more. You'll find yourself forgiving some of the movie's more outlandish plot set-ups, and simply accepting it for what it is--a great family film. I appreciated not having to be concerned about 'questionable elements' in a children's film for once. That, to me, is worth the price of the ticket. And it manages to maintain its wholesomeness without being obvious about it--older chidlren will enjoy this film. Enough good humor to keep adults interested. Very good film.


Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie.


The van trotta movie rosenstrasse is the best movie i have seen in years. i am actually not really interested in films with historical background but with this she won my interest for that time!!

the only annoying thing about the movie have been the scenes in new york, and the impression i had of 'trying to be as American as possible' ... which i think has absolutely failed.

the scenes in the back really got to my heart. the German actress katja riemann completely deserved her award. she is one of the most impressing actress i have ever seen. in future i will watch more of her movies. great luck for me that i am a native German speaking =) and only for a year in the us, so as soon as i am back i'll buy some riemann dvds.

so to all out there who have not seen this movie yet: WATCH IT!!! i think it would be too long to describe what it is all about yet, especially all the flash backs and switches of times are hard to explain, but simply watcxh it, you will be zesty!!!!!!!


This movie was disgusting. Their should be a warning that some sadistic nasty writer is attempting to make a name for herself before being held hostage for an hour and a half watching garbage. What is garbage? The misuse of peoples time, the misuse of energy, and the waste of whatever type of educational system that taught her how to read and write. Talia you are a sick demented loser. Your psychiatrist needs to prescribe stronger medications for your problem.

The acting and plot gave me no choice but to fast forward through the middle of the garbage. I ended up at a scene that was uncalled for. If you want to learn how to shock people watch a Larry Clark movie. I lost all respect for the entire cast of this movie 'no more support from me.' How could actors or actresses sit on a set while such gross depictions of human behavior is manifested from the mind of a psycho? I feel sorry for all actors that took part in that scene. I think the devil now knows who the writer of this movie is; congratulations you won his attention.


I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.

It is definitely a film i would recommend.


I was very willing to give Rendition the benefit of the doubt when it came to all the negative press I had read concerning it. Even about three-quarters of the way through, I still thought it was jumbled and a bit incoherent, but otherwise a solid tale reaching its conclusion. And then the bottom fell out. Not wanting to necessarily ruin the film for anyone, but the conclusion flips everything you held to be fact about what and when things have been happening on its headfor no particular reason whatsoever except to maybe tell the world, yeah I'm cool, and I know it. I love a good twist, I love a good ah-ha moment, but only when it is relevant to the story at hand. The complete misguidance on the part of the filmmakers serves no purpose on the overall tale, timelines didn't need to be parallel and they didn't need to be separated by a week. All the revelation did was destroy any merit I was about to give director Gavin Hood and screenwriter Kelley Sane, which may be a good thing, because looking back, it wasn't really as solid a movie as I initially was going to blindly give it credit for.

It is an admirable thing to try and get the term rendition out into the film-going public's consciousness, but it needed a story that delved deeper into the connotations and politics involved, rather than gloss over those issues for a tale of a woman in distress over her husband's disappearance and the angst-filled rebellion of a daughter against her 'interrogator' father. I understand that the bottom-line film attendee needs a human quality to grasp onto and for that reason I don't fault it for going that route. My only qualm is that we don't get enough of what the title says we should be getting. Instead we are shown numerous plot lines, all confusingly brought to the forefront before being sent back into the nether regions of our consciousness, never to be returned to. So much is going on that you forget what you are supposed to be caring for, the wife? the interrogator? the CIA agent? the victim? the senator? the Middle Eastern daughter and her zealot boyfriend? At the end I really just gave up and let the film take me where it would, which ended up being someone totally different than what it first laid out.

Everything that occurs happens as the result of a bomb explosion. This bomb is at the center of every story thread and finally ends up being so innocuous that you can't believe how huge the waves it spread were. The old butterfly wings flapping quote is in full effect, because one boy's mission for revenge ends up destroying the lives of so many. Whether by death, destruction, physical and emotional abuse, or career suicide; no one really escapes unscathed. However, at the end of the day, only the story about the man who has been excised to Egypt for torture is really interesting. We are led to believe he is unequivocally innocent from the start, yet he is waterboarded, electrocuted, etc. in order to extract any information he might have. When those in power include a man with no compassion or reason to stop until something is spilled, (whether true or not), and an observer without the guts to partake or stop it, the situation lends itself some intrigue as to how it could possibly end. The three actors involved all are the best parts of the film and prove once more that the movie should have concerned itself with them for the entirety.

I don't want to belittle people like Reese Witherspoon, (the victim's wife), or her Senate employed ex, played by Peter Sarsgaard, because they actual do a good job with what they are given. Even Meryl Streep, her kooky accent, and Alan Arkin don't detract too much. However, it is the trio of Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA agent, Yigal Naor's interrogator, and Omar Metwally's victim that truly shine. Naor is brilliant as the Egyptian trying to stay sharp as a razor during working hours yet compassionate and worry-filled as a father attempting to locate his daughter. This man is brutal, but he is because that is what his occupation calls for and why he is relied upon to find answers. Metwally never gives a false second during the pain and suffering inflicted upon him. Whether he is lying or truly knows nothing about the terrorist who has been calling his cell phone, we totally buy into his plight and desperately wait to see how the situation turns out. As for Gyllenhaal, someone who seems to have one performance recycled throughout his career with varying degrees of success, he finds a part that suits him. The demons entering his soul throughout the ordeal he is forced to be a part of wear on his body and mind, causing both ambivalence and a need to intervene. The two feelings wrestle with each other until he makes a final decision, and his stoic, boyish demeanor suit that battle perfectly.

It is just too bad that the one plot line working never finds itself as the main focal point, despite being the namesake of the film. With all the clutter around the edges, we as an audience get bounced around too much, lulled into a sense of time and sequence, and then slapped in the face as it all unravels in more of a laugh on us then a, 'bet you didn't see that coming.' I felt cheated and unfortunately that is the lasting effect I have taken from the movie. Had it been more straightforward I might have enjoyed myself more, but as is, one can still take some positives from the severely flawed whole.


Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a 'worst case scenario' of playing 'strong' feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...

I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.


Bergman's Skammen is one of the most realistic depictions of war ever set to film. This is not an action film by any means, though the pacing is faster and there is most action than in most any other Bergman movie. Nor is this a romanticisation of war or patriotism, unlike most war movies. In fact, the gritty realism and the deliberate ambiguity of the character's loyalties has a very contemporary feel.

Skammen is a darkly lit movie, that should be watched at night, so as to let it work it's magic. Many of the effects are conveyed indirectly, but so effectively that some scenes compete in intensity to a contemporary, insanely huge budget film like Saving Private Ryan. Of course, the action in Skammen is on a much smaller scale but it is impressive none-the-less.

While the film-making style feels contemporary, the setting of the film feels timeless and placeless. The war-torn countryside, and even the yet intact provincial hamlet could be anywhere, any time. And this film is not so much about specific historical events, with specific names and dates, but about universal human reactions to adversity and chaos.

The acting in Skammen, though typically impressive from Ullman and Sydow, is not of primary importance in this film, unlike most other Bergman movies. Through much of the film they are spectators, much as we are. Bergman has the war imposed on them, and through them on the audience, and their reaction is perhaps what any of our reactions might be.

Highly recommended. 10/10


I of course saw the previews for this at the beginning of some other Lion's Gate extravaganza, so of course it was only the best parts and therefore looked intriguing. And it is, to a point. A young college student (Sarah)is finding riddles all over the place and is becoming obsessed with answering them, and in doing so she's unwittingly becoming involved in some game. Now that's fairly intriguing right there but unfortunately it all gets rather muddled and becomes so complicated that the viewer (like myself) will most likely become frustrated. Characters appear with little introduction and you're not really sure who they are or why Sarah knows them or is hanging out with them. All of this has something to do with this woman who tried to drown a young boy years ago and her reason for that was that it's 'all part of the design'. In reality, it's all part of the 'very sketchy script' and when the film is over you'll find yourself feeling that you've lost about an hour and a half of your life that you want back for more productive uses of your time, like cleaning the bathroom, for instance. 4 out of 10.


I just saw 'If' I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in 'The Hill,' a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective 'brothers.' I took the consequences of not having the 'in' with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in 'Last Tango In Paris' where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say 'Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?' --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.


The copy of this movie that I have seen is not very good. It's grainy and has almost no color in some parts. It switches back and forth between English and French, often in mid sentence, and sometimes even in the middle of a word! To make matters much worse, there are no English subtitles during the French language parts, which I think make up at least one quarter of the film. But, amazingly, the movie is still very understandable and enjoyable, even in this condition, and I think that says a lot about how well-made this film is.

This is a top notch spaghetti western with great acting, an interesting storyline, and an excellent music score. It also has a cool protagonist, a beautiful dark-haired girl, some strange characters and events, and an overall feeling of melancholy. This film has 'Euro' written all over it.

I hope there is a pristine negative or print of this film out there somewhere, because it deserves a quality DVD release, and when it comes out I will be one of the first in line to get it!


This film is one of my fondest childhood memories. Seeing the Muppets (at the height of their popularity) heading Hollywood, singing and dancing, with Miss Piggy googely-eying her beloved Kermit, Fozzie Bear doing his best as everyone's manager, and a generous cast of 'extras' delivering a film that turned out to be 'okey dokey'.

Kermit's melancholy ukulele number 'Rainbow Connection' was nominated for an Oscar that year, but was beat out by Norma Rae's 'It Goes Like It Goes'. I'll pick Kermit's song any day! Get the kids and enjoy this timeless fantasy...someday they'll find it, the rainbow connections, the lovers, the dreamers and me!


This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)

Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of 'southern' accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.

But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.


I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it 'Solomon Kane' in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.

It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).

With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say 'From the creator of Conan' and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new 'Conan' movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three 'boss levels' at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.

If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.


Those wishing to see film noir remakes, should not see this as as a remake, you will always be disappointed. Instead, enjoy a gripping performance from Dennis Quaid and visual imagery to commend. The colour drains from the film (literally, not metaphorically!)) as the plot gathers pace, and the dialogue is crisp and gritty. The opening dialogue is clever, and the viewer is carried along by a sharp screenplay and a real, original film noir feel,


Polyester was the very first John Water's film I saw, and I have to say that it was also the 'worst' movie I had seen up to that point.

Water's group of 'talent' included several people who I am sure worked for food, and were willing to say the lines Waters wrote. Every thing about the movie is terrible, acting, camera, editing, and the story about a woman played by 300 lb transvestite Divine was purely absurd.

That said, I have to recommend this film because it is very funny, and you won't believe the crap that happens to poor Francine. Her son huffs solvents and stomps unsuspecting women's feet at the grocery store. Her daughter is the sluttiest slut in town. Her husband is a cackling A-hole of a pornographer who does everything in his power to embarrass and humiliate poor Francine.

Francine's only friend is played by Edith Massey, possibly the worst actress ever. Edith looks and sounds like she is reading the lines off a cue card and has never seen the script prior to filming.

Despite all of Francine's travails, Waters cooks up a fabulous Hollywood ending and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after.


More exciting than the Wesley Snipes film, and with better characters, too. The last vampire hunter must save Los Angeles from a coven of vampires out to conquer the city, aided by a tabloid journalist. Lost of fun... and the names of the characters are great!


I have never seen one of these SciFi originals before, this was the first. I think it only fair to judge the acting, direction/production, set design and even the CGI effects on the other SciFi movies. To compare it to your typical Hollywood production is unfair. I will say, however, that overall Aztec Rex was not exactly reminiscent of Werner Herzog's masterpiece Aguirre, Wrath of God.

I will begin by noting that, yes, I do recognize the fact that this movie has more to do with culture-clash than it does with dinosaurs. Despite this being a made-for-TV sci-fi movie, there is some underlying context to the story which I shall examine. The symbolic elements included are evident enough.

Consequently, as a student of history, theology, mythology and film: I found the dialogue outrageous and the plot themes to be somewhat insulting. I am not asking for any mea culpas on behalf of the producers - as I said before the movie is what it is. But what concerns me is that much of the younger demographic for this movie probably rely on television to provide them their lessons when it comes to history and cultural diversity.

The main problem manifests itself most visibly with the character Ayacoatl (not a commentary on Dichen Lachman's performance, but simply how her character was written, although, I'll say she has some work to do before she receives any Emmy nods). It is through her character that the Spanish Europeans actions are justified. Her function in the film as the love interest of Rios affirms that the European way is the right way, simply because they are European. There is really no other reason given. It's really just left to the assumption that the viewer is meant to associate themselves with the Europeans over the Aztec because their dress, language, ideology, etc is more familiar to them than the Aztec - so therefore the Aztec are portrayed as adversarial and 'backwards.' And it's not simply that the viewer is left with that assumption due to ethnocentric perception on the viewers part, but it really seems like the story is trying to convince the viewer - As if the Aztec were not capable of coming up with a plan - if not a better one - to lure a dinosaur to its death on a bed of punji sticks.

In fairness, there is a subgroup of the Spanish who are portrayed as looting temples and intent on simply abusing the native MesoAmericans. There is also a scene where we have the Christian holy man noting the achievements of the Aztec: 'They have agriculture, medicine, calendar, etc.' - But in the end it is still the Aztec warrior who is portrayed as the main antagonist of the movie, even over the 'thunder lizards' (more on that later). He his portrayed as treacherous, duplicitous and attempts to dispatch the romantic European Spaniard by tricking him into consuming hallucinogenic mind altering mushrooms - an important spiritual component to certain aspects and religions of the native Meso & North Americans (again, more on this later) so that he can keep the female he feels belongs to him and away from the Spaniard.

Now in analyzing the true nature of the story (leaving the obvious Christian vs. Pagan themes off of the table) from a symbolic standpoint - a viewer can easily take these so-called thunder lizards to be representatives of the MesoAmerican ideology/theology, which in this movie is portrayed as being one intent on: bloodthirstiness, mercilessness, cruelness, wicked, maybe even evil? In opposition, we have this group of Christian wanderers, led by a young Hernando Cortes who are portrayed as naive, yet overall noble, lambs caught up in the dark heathen world of the Aztec. Also, the name of the film is Aztec Rex, leading one to believe that it is about dinosaurs out to eat people. However, what Aztec Rex translates to is Aztec King, a the head of the Aztec state, or in this instance 'state-of-being.' (Hence, why the title of the film was changed). And so who in fact do we see as the new Aztec king at the end? It's the remaining Spaniard, Rios. Aztec Rex is in reference to the new European ideology which overcame, through disease, bloodshed, war & famine, Native Americans. Rios symbolizes the ideal European - as the presenters of this film would like them to be remembered (in opposition to Cortes who represents the 'practical-yet-still-noble European'). But when you examine the Holocausts of the Americas, let us be honest: don't the symbolic components of this film's story have it backwards?

I have to say Aztec Rex is at worst a little racist, or to be kind about it, ignorant at best.

And yes, I know it's just a movie, all meant to be in fun, I understand, but so at the end we're left with the idea that Rios was the father of the last remaining Aztec lines? I wonder what Native MesoAmericans would have to think about this ending... as for myself, I thought it was a little too self indulgent.

Best supporting performance of the movie goes to Ian Ziering's wig - although conspicuous - it did at least alter Ziering's appearance enough so that I didn't think I was watching the yuppie from 90210 leading a bunch of conquistadors into the heart of darkness. Ziering actually proves himself to be a more-than-capable actor in this movie, I actually bought his performance, or at least I forgot it was Ian Ziering anyway. I don't know whom his agent is, but he should get more work.

In closing, it was also a pleasure to see Jim McGee again. I've been a fan ever since his all too brief scene-stealing performance in 1988's Scrooged.

Alexander Quaresma - DeusExMachina529@aol.com


Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.

Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight.


After 66 years 'Flash Gordon' still has an appealing scifi/adventure/epic feel that many of today's science fiction adventures strive for and fail to deliver. The only way to fully enjoy this serial is just to sit back and not pick at anything (hokey effects, dialogue, why Flash doesn't go for Princess Aura etc.). And as for you older people who saw 'Flash Gordon' back on the serial screen or on T.V. 'back in the day', if you want this fine serial to remain appealing to future generations, get your kids/grandkids to watch this when they're young. It worked for me (Male aged 18 or under). 9 out of 10


I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!!


Latcho Drom is a cinematic survey of Gypsy music from several countries. It is touching, sad and joyous. Most of the segments appear to be completely unstaged, unrehearsed. The music, ranging from the sensual flamenco music of the Spanish Gypsies, to the melancholy music of the Central European Gypsies, is exquisite. If you love Gypsy music, you'll find Latcho Drom absolutely beautiful.


Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making 'romantic comedies' because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable 'romantic comedy' that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say 'suspend your disbelief', one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.

I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film.


This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.

Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. 'If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story.'

In conclusion: Absolute human waste.


This a rip roaring western and i have watched it many times and it entertains on every level.However if your after the true facts about such legends as Hickcock,Cody and Calamity Jane then look elsewhere, as John Ford suggested this is the west when the truth becomes legend print the legend.The story moves with a cracking pace, and there is some great dialogue between Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur two very watchable stars who help to make this movie.The sharp eyed amongst you might just spot Gabby Hayes as an Indian scout, also there is a very young Anthony Quinn making his debut as Cayenne warrior, he actually married one of Demilles daughters in real life.Indeed its Quinns character who informs Cooper of the massacre of Custer told in flash back, the finale is well done and when the credits roll it fuses the American west with American history.So please take time out to watch this classic western.


Odious Chuck Norris decided to put one final nail in the coffin

containing his film career before going to the safe world of CBS

Saturday night carnage with this hysterically bad supernatural

actioner.

For such a dumb movie this thing sure is plotty. Norris is Chicago

cop Frank Shatter. First off, what kind of last name is 'Shatter'?

Have you ever met any Shatters? Genforum.com has no listing for

the last name Shatter, which opens up any half clever viewer to

replace the 'a' in Shatter with an 'i.' He and his partner, Calvin

Jackson, do the same old buddy cop routine you have seen

before: make funny with the pimps, and make their captain mad.

Jackson, looking like the theoretical love child of Whoopi Goldberg

and Rick James, quickly wears on the nerves with his constant

complaining and Eddie Murphy-patented facial expressions.

Shatter and Calvin become involved with an emissary of Satan,

whom we are introduced to in the too long opening scenes.

Prosatano is a demon who is locked in a crypt by King Richard the

Lionhearted. The demon's scepter, from which he gets his power,

is busted into nine pieces and hid in nine different parts of the

world by holy men. In 1951, some grave robbers accidentally let

Prosatano out and he begins collecting the nine pieces. He

disguises himself as an antiquities professor named Lockley and

always happens to be giving a lecture where a holy man is killed

and a piece of the scepter is taken.

Norris brings in his 'Walker: Texas Blunder' cohort Sheree Wilson,

who plays Lockley's assistant. She helps Norris with his

investigation, they make goo goo eyes at each other, and our

intrepid investigators travel to Israel after a rabbi is killed in

Chicago. While in Israel, Calvin is given even more to complain

about: the heat, the lack of restaurant accomodations, the lousy

drivers, and the fact that he is missing the Chicago Bulls playoff

games. Norris even manages to work a cute Israeli kid into this

nightmare. Bezi steals Calvin's wallet, and hangs around the men,

leading them around Israel and not arousing any sort of

appropriate suspicion.

Eventually, Lockley (Prosatano) assembles all of the scepter

pieces, but needs the blood of royalty to complete the ceremony

and call up the devil. Where to find royal blood? Well, Sheree's

father is a duke! She has an American accent but she is the

screenwriters' convenient method of forcing this monstrosity

toward its inevitable conclusion. Sure, this minion of Satan may

have killed countless hundreds over the years, but how is he

gonna do against a good old fashioned American butt kickin'?

After Prosatano has been vanquished, killed by his own scepter (I

envied him, he did not have to watch Bezi steal Calvin's wallet

again), we are treated to an awful coda involving a bearded man

who has been watching Shutter, I mean Shatter, and Calvin on

their quest. You see, it was foretold...somewhere...that two

warriors from the west would defeat Prosatano. The silent

bearded man who watched over the couple was none other than

Jesus...I kid you not. He is listed as 'Prophet' in the end credits,

but you and even your pets will recognize the subtle Christian

reference the film makers are trying to exhibit here.

Like in 'I Use a Walker: Texas Ranger,' Norris is aging and cannot

get into his fight scenes too much anymore. He kicks a lot, and

people fly over furniture in slow motion, and then Norris gives all of

his line readings in that monotone voice of his. Oh, what a real

director might be able to fashion out of him! His brother, Aaron,

who has directed him in other films as well, has no sense of story

or momentum. Scenes are thrown in for ego's sake, not to

entertain. The scenes when the dynamic duo first meet Bezi drag

on and on, and then Bezi is not all that important to the rest of the

film.

The film was shot on location in Israel, which means the

Americans could insult the Israelis in person. There is not one

likeable Israeli character here. The Israeli police captain is a jerk.

The cops' driver does not know English, and Calvin convinces him

that the word 'sh*tty' is a compliment. Nothing funnier than

mocking those stupid foreigners on their home turf, especially

when all this racist humor is coming from an American minority

who would have been more than offended if the tables were turned

and the Israeli cop was mocking the African-American cop in

Chicago.

This film is badly written, badly acted, and badly directed. It does

not work as action, cop drama, or even horror. It just shows that

the now defunct Cannon Studios was willing to throw their money

into anything, no matter how badly it was planned. 'Hellbound' is

surely a most adequate title. I disliked this movie intensely.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, strong

profanity, some sexual references, and some adult situations.


The only reason 'The Norliss Tapes' deserves ANY stars is the presence of Angie Dickinson in the cast. Other than getting to see Angie Baby in a pre-'Police Woman' performance, there's nothing else worth seeing here.

THE SYNOPSIS:

*** MINOR SPOILERS ***

David Norliss is tapped to write a book on the supernatural. One day he mysteriously disappears after phoning his publisher and suggesting he has stumbled across something that has placed him in mortal danger. The entire series for which this miserable pilot was written was apparently intended to be a series of flashbacks via the 'Norliss tapes' -- a set of audio tapes the writer recorded while investigating cases of the supernatural.

In the pilot episode, a wealthy sculptor dies -- but not before purchasing an ancient Egyptian scarab ring from a local occultist who assures him the bauble will give him immortality after death. We soon discover the ring itself doesn't grant immortality. Instead, it only reanimates the sculptor's corpse, allowing him to escape his crypt so he can run around town draining pretty girls of all their blood.

Blue-faced, yellow-eyed and growling out ARRRGHHHHHHs you haven't heard since you last watched 'Scooby Doo' cartoons, the sculptor attacks his wife (Dickinson) one dark night. She escapes and, via a mutual acquaintance, contacts Norliss to get his assistance in solving the mystery behind her late husband's uncanny reappearance on her estate.

So is this guy a vampire? No. There's no vampire in this story despite what you may have read or heard. The sculptor doesn't drink his victims' blood -- he collects it. How? Don't know. We only see him attacking, never collecting. Why? To fulfill the second part of his bid for immortality. It turns out the reanimated sculptor will only be allowed to live forever if he builds a life-size statue of a demon named Sargoth out of a mixture of clay and human blood. Once it's finished, Sargoth plans to inhabit the statue, using it as his gateway into our world.

THE FINAL ANALYSIS:

'The Norliss Tapes' wasn't picked up as a series for a very good reason... it was garbage. As you can see from my synopsis, the story is a paltry, ill-conceived mess. The acting and dialogue offer no better. This isn't even a contender for a 'So Bad It's Good' Award. Sometimes bad is just bad.

After years of hearing underground rumblings about the great merits of 'The Norliss Tapes,' I was very excited to find it airing on Fox Movie Channel on 10/15/03. I wish I hadn't set myself up for the fall.

Having screened this groaner for the first time two days ago, I can only assume any applause you've heard so far from other IMDB reviewers is coming from those who are reviewing the show based on dim memories and the nostalgia of youth. Or perhaps they are simply loyal fans of Dan Curtis. Either way, they've offered you misleading reviews of 'The Norliss Tapes.'

Pauly Orchid -- October 17, 2003


Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).

I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?


'The Deadly Look of Love' is essentially 'Fatal Attraction' with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.

Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.

Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time 'The Deadly Look of Love' airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.


This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least.


I loved this film. A must see for any Rod Steiger fan. Producer Suzanne DeLaurentiis and Director Stewart Raffill have brought us a true family film that touches the soul. An incredibly well put together movie with a beautiful soundtrack.


This is an excellent documentary about Amália Rodrigues. I enjoyed it very much; it's very well put together and very informative. If you want to know who is Amália Rodrigues. I highly recommend you see this film, 'The Art Of Amália Rodrigues'.


Extremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.


This movie is written by Charlie Higson, who has before this done the 'legendary' Fast Show and his own show based on one of Fast Show's characters (Tony the car sales man). He's also written James Bond books for kids.

Actually I've seen before this only Gordon's movies that are based on Lovecraft's stories, and every one of those is marvelous. Here Gordon tries to do something different. The style is totally 'contemporary', which means shaky camera, fast and strange cutting, cool chillout music in the background. It works quite well here, I guess, but it's still pointless and cheap. It makes me often think of the cameraman who's shaking his dv-camera in front of the actors/actresses and try to make stylish moves in the pictures (hoping that something tolerable would come out of it). The casting is good, and there is a whole atmosphere, which is the result of good directing. I think the main character, the 'zero' young guy, is quite interesting in his 'zeroness'. The fat guy is also good. And the guy who looks like Alec Baldwin, but is not him. But pretty soon after the beginning the movie turns out to be something not-so-interesting: In this case I mean an endless line of scenes of sadism and sickness. There is not much humanity in this film/story: It's totally pessimistic, and every person in this movie is disgusting and hopeless, or soon dead. Needless to say that there is no humor either. It's a 1'40 long vomit without no relief in any moment. Anyway, Gordon remains to me one of the most interesting movie makers that are active today, and I think of this movie as an experiment, and as a failure in that. Everyone has to experience getting lost sometimes, just to learn and to find their way again. This might be Gordon's most uninteresting and empty work.


Practically the only other actor who would be less likely to play Evel Knieval than Hamilton is Anthony Perkins, yet somehow Hamilton manages to turn in a reasonably effective portrayal (and as producer of the film, he wasn't likely to be fired or told he wasn't right for the part!) The early life of the daredevil motorcyclist is recounted here in multiple flashbacks. The film opens with a rather silly prologue with Hamilton in his white-leather, star-spangled gear spouting the world according to Knieval as if to say, 'Don't worry. This film is about my youth, but I'll be back in my familiar costume by the end of the picture.' Hamilton is preparing for a huge jump, yet is still licking his wounds from the previous one as devoted wife Lyon both supports and derides him. He recalls various vignettes of his childhood and delinquent teenage years along with his early days as a stunt rider and blossoming celebrity. This flip-flop approach is pretty abrupt and sometimes disjointed, but it does prevent the movie from sticking to one of its inexpensive sets for too long a time or from getting into a rut with the fairly pedestrian characters. Hamilton, usually a suave and debonair persona, does a very fine job of enacting the tiny details of his subject's mannerisms and demeanor including his walk. His hair is a shade lighter and longer and he works hard to give the right inflections in his speaking. (He even pays minor tribute to Knieval's many injuries by appearing in a skimpy towel while his shoulders are covered in 'scars' from the multitudinous accidents.) Facially, he looks nothing like the real cyclist, but he does suggest him in his physical performance. Lyon is excellent at playing the young girl he loves and then the more worldly wife, though her 3-pack a day voice does threaten to give her away at any given moment. She and Hamilton strike up an easy chemistry which goes a long way in putting the film over. Other nice supporting turns are given by Freed as his jaded doctor, Cameron as an early influence and Taylor as a flea-bitten sideshow barker. The film was made on a low budget, but the story is a rather low rent one anyway, so that doesn't affect it too badly. The makers wisely used actual Butte, Montana locations to give the film a proper small town ambiance. Several of Hamilton's antics are amusing, though the character is certainly reckless and inconsiderate of other people's property! Some of the real Knieval's completed and failed stunts are included in some blurry footage, one of which features a mind-boggling 'splatter' in which the man is rolled up and snapped around like a rag doll. Hamilton's then-wife (Stewart) appears briefly as a nurse.


An incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film.

It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible not to feel anything for the people in this drama.

There are lots and lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your life - make this one of them.


First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. 'Friends' could be considered an adaptation of the classic 'The Blue Lagoon', originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While 'The Blue Lagoon' puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, 'Friends' goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own.


The plot is very basic, but acceptable: A young US soldier, having studied Asian martial arts, puts this to good use in defence of the general's daughter and falls in love with her. Unfortunately, the three main acting parties' (soldier, girl, rebels) combined IQ amounts to 3: One point for the soldier, one for the girl, a large number of Ninja fighters have to share the third point among them to be able to lose against the former two.


It's a shame this movie is so hard to get your hands on in the US. I found it through a rare video dealer, and it was certainly worth it. This is, without a doubt, the best film made during the pre-code era, and the finest film of the 1930s. Masterful director Frank Borzage made wonderful films about the Depression, and with MAN'S CASTLE he created a fairy tale amidst the hardships of the era.

Loretta Young and Spencer Tracy have a wonderful chemistry between them, and they help make this movie a wonderful romance. Young's Trina is sweet and hopeful, while Tracy's Bill is gruff and closed-off. The dynamic between the character creates one of the most difficult, but in the end rewarding relationships on film.

MAN'S CASTLE is the most soft-focus pre-code film I've seen. Borzage uses the hazy and dreamy technique to turn the squatter's village where Bill and Trina live into a palace. The hardships of the Depression are never ignored, in fact they're integral to the film. But as Borzage crafts the film as a soft focus fairy tale, the love between the characters makes the situation seem less harsh. It makes the film warm and affectionate.

MAN'S CASTLE is the crowning achievement of the pre-code era. If only more people could see it.


The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the 'key to the universe' that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about. Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long, but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well as look forward eagerly to his future ones.

My Grade: A


One night I stumbled upon this on the satellite station Bravo.Initially out of curiosity i decided to watch it.To be perfectly honest i wasn't disappointed.The main character is beautiful and her body is shown off well.You would think her talents would be wasted as a executioner but apparently not after watching the whole film!My only real gripe is the acting of the supporting cast particularly the actor who plays Melnik.Christ its bad!The prison guard Hank is woeful too.All he ever does is get drunk and make ill attempted passes at his co-guard Wanda though fortunately for us the viewer and for Hank he gets down and dirty with Wanda near the end. The music used is pretty tense and creates the perfect atmosphere for the executions. This movie is well watching alone for the beautiful,talented and very sexy Jennifer Thomas


FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines.


I'm not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: 'A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary.' Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.

--Shelly


Surely the Gershwin family realizes this is one of America's greatest opera. You have thousands of fans of this opera waiting for it to be released on DVD. Please don't be so stubborn, give us a break. Think of the joy and wonder you can bring to a starved public for quality music, by releasing this great GEM. Don't wait until the film is beyond repair. The cast is first rate, the music is just awesome, we need beautiful music in today's world. It may never be filmed again with such a great cast again. With today's home theater systems,wonderful sound systems and need for great music, I'm pleading with the Gershwin family to reconsider and release this awesome movie. Thanks So Much


I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a 'thumbs in the middle' review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.

Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.

And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see 'no character development', above).

And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.

1) Joker gasses people.

2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.

3) Batman saves the day.

Pfeh.

There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the 'Think Thank Thunk' episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than 'I've Got Batman in My Basement.'

I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with 'B' and rhymes with 'fastardization'. Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.


'Panic In The Streets' is an exciting and atmospheric thriller in which director Elia Kazan achieved a great sense of realism by shooting the movie in New Orleans, using a number of local people to fill various roles and making intelligent use of improvisation. As a result, the characters and dialogue both seem very natural and believable. An important deadline which has to be met in order to avoid a disaster, provides the story with its great sense of urgency and pace and the problems which delay the necessary action from being taken, then increase the tension to a high level.

Following a dispute between the participants in a card game, a man called Kochak (Lewis Charles) is shot and his body is dumped in the dock area. When the body is found and the coroner identifies the presence of a virus, U.S. Public Health official Dr Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) is called in and his examination confirms the presence of pneumonic plague. Reed insists that all known contacts of the dead man must be inoculated without delay because the very infectious nature of the disease means that without such action, anyone infected could be expected to die within days.

As the identity of the dead man is unknown, the task of finding his contacts is expected to be difficult and this situation is not helped when city officials and the Police Commissioner are not fully convinced by Reed's briefing. They doubt that the threat to the public is potentially as serious as he claims it is and their initial lack of commitment is just the first of a series of obstacles which prevent action from being taken urgently. The investigation that follows is hampered by a lack of cooperation from the immigrant community, a group of seamen, the proprietor of a restaurant and also some illegal immigrants before the man's identity and his contacts are eventually found.

Kochak, an illegal immigrant, had been in a gang with Blackie (Jack Palance), Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Vince Poldi (Tommy Cook) and when gang leader Blackie becomes aware of the ongoing police investigation, he presumes that Kochak must've smuggled something very valuable into the country. As Kochak and Poldi were related, Blackie assumes that Poldi must know something about this and goes to find out more. Poldi, however, is very ill and unable to provide any information. Blackie brings in his own doctor and together with Fitch starts to move Poldi out of his room and down some stairs and this is when they meet up with Reed and an exciting chase follows.

Richard Widmark gives a strong performance as an underpaid public official who copes efficiently with the onerous responsibilities of his job whilst also dealing with his domestic preoccupations as a family man. In an unusual type of role for him, he also portrays the determined and serious minded nature of Dr Reed very convincingly. Jack Palance's film debut sees him giving an impressive performance as a ruthless thug who misjudges Kochak's reason for leaving the card game and also the reason for the intense police investigation. His distinctive looks also help to make his on-screen presence even more compelling.

In typical docu-noir style, expressionist cinematography and neo-realist influences are utilized in tandem to effectively capture the atmosphere of the locations in which the action takes place. Elia Kazan directs with precision throughout but also excels in the memorable chase sequence in the warehouse and on the dockside.


I instantly fell in love with 'Pushing Daisies'. This show manages to put a smile on my face with it's great storytelling, witty dialog and great acting. But that's not all: It also manages to keep you until the end. The basic idea behind the show - Bringing people back to life with one touch, ending the undead status with a second - is interesting and could still be in later seasons. But the suspenseful murder cases, the unique look of the show and the highly proficient narrator add to the experience. But 'Pushing Daisies' is more than it's parts. It has a certain charm that I really enjoy and I'm looking forward to enter the world of Ned and Chuck for a second season.


This 1950's howler is so bad it's unintentionally funny. Tom Conway portrays Dr. Gerard, a scientist who is turning natives into a monster using voodoo. His poor wife, played by Mary Ellen Kay, is being held captive by her wacko hubby who has no time for her but threatens to kill her if she leaves him. Along comes Marla English as a greedy murderess who has already killed a man to find treasure in the jungle. Her idiot boyfriend, portrayed by Lance Fuller, is along on the safari. They hire 'Touch' Connors, (later renamed Mike Connors, of Mannix fame) as a guide. English is a terrible actress, but hey, no one else in the cast were turning in academy award winning performances either. 'Touch' (I'm sorry, I can't even type the name without cracking up, I mean, what the...) gave the only half way decent performance of the bunch and that's saying a lot. The monster is only seen briefly, and the ending is predictable to say the least. I would say this movie falls into the 'it's so bad, it's almost good' category of movies. It's good on a rainy night when nothing else is on the tube.


Wow, what a strange film. It's a David Lynch movie so it's no surprise that it is weird.

I defy anyone to totally explain everything in this film. I can't be done. After some research following my second viewing of this film, I pretty much know most of the story but on a first look, and with no aid from other reviewers or outside help, it is hard to figure things out. So, if you're in that boat and was confused, don't feel bad; that's normal. Let me just say the key to the film is Naomi Watts' character.

At any rate, I find the film fascinating. I love the wonderful visuals and rich colors and find each character in this movie really different and fun to watch. The camera-work is excellent and the music is creepy, a la Lynch's 'Blue Velvet.' There also are some good sound effects to help some of the dramatic scenes. In all, it's very well scored.

Like Lynch's 'Twin Peaks' television series, this was a film in which the end was pieced together afterward since Lynch thought this film was going to be a long, drawn-out TV series. When that didn't happen, he pieced at the last minute this ending. That may account for some of the confusion at the end and the lack of explanations concerning characters we see earlier in the film but who mysteriously disappear.

The theme of the story, supposedly, is a negative comment about Hollywood and what it does to people, especially those whose dreams of being an actor are crushed.

Both Watts and the other leading lady, Laura Eleana Harring, are very interesting to watch, especially in their celebrated lesbian sex scene. Looks- wise, both women were chameleons, looking average at times, stunning at other times.

I enjoyed this movie more on the second viewing than the first. It's not just a curiosity piece; it's a very intriguing movie.....just don't feel stupid if you can't make sense of a few things.


Claire Denis has demonstrated repeatedly that film does not need to tell a story, that it is sufficient to create an experience that allows the viewer to take the ingredients and make of them what they will.

Ostensibly the idea within the framework of a most non-linear film is the older man living on the French-Swiss border, a man devoted to his dogs, who still has a lover, but whose cardiac status increasingly threatens his life. He has a son with a little family who infrequently meet with him, but when he discovers he is in need of a heart transplant he opts for going to Tahiti via Japan to obtain a heart transplant on the black market and to rekindle a long lost relationship with a son he had form a Tahitian women years ago.

What Denis does with this outline of a story is use her camera to explore the loneliness of the soul, the vastness of nature, man's interaction with people vs animals, etc. Much of the time the 'film' doesn't make sense, but that is because we try too hard to connect all the dots laid out before us in beautiful pictures. Life is sort of like that: we look, see, observe, integrate, process, and make of it what we will.

In using this form of film making (much as she did in the strangely beautiful 'Beau Travail') Claire Denis has developed a signature technique. Whether or not the viewer finds the finished product rewarding has much to do with our individual methods of processing visual and conceptual information. This is an interesting and visually captivating film, but many viewers will find it an overly long discourse about very little. Perhaps watching again will change that. Grady Harp