I saw this movie at an actual movie theater (probably the $2.00 one) with my cousin and uncle. We were around 11 and 12, I guess, and really into scary movies. I remember being so excited to see it because my cool uncle let us pick the movie (and we probably never got to do that again!) and sooo disappointed afterwards!! Just boring and not scary. The only redeeming thing I can remember was Corky Pigeon from Silver Spoons, and that wasn't all that great, just someone I recognized. I've seen bad movies before and this one has always stuck out in my mind as the worst. This was from what I can recall, one of the most boring, non-scary, waste of our collective $6, and a waste of film. I have read some of the reviews that say it is worth a watch and I say, 'Too each his own', but I wouldn't even bother. Not even so bad it's good.


Honest young insurance agent Ronald Reagan (as Eric Gregg) is optimistic, but poor. His wife, scheming Sheila Bromley (as Nona Gregg), longs for the finer things in life. Describing herself as 'not weighted down with tons of righteousness,' Ms. Bromley begins to spend more money than Mr. Reagan earns. Bromley obtains the finer things in life, but puts the couple in debt. Bromley is a fun shrew.

Handsome Reagan attracts other women, like perky clerk Gloria Blondell (as Patricia Carmody); but, he doesn't indulge. To pay the bills, Bromley gets tangled up in the insurance fraud racket - which helps get her husband fired. An unemployed Reagan seems to be tempted into a life of crime - will he remain straight up, or get crooked? Clinton Rosemond has an uncomfortable 'broken arm' scene.

*** Accidents Will Happen (1938) William Clemens ~ Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley, Gloria Blondell


A community pool in Connecticut is the setting for this 'under the radar' film which is charming, funny, entertaining, and appealing. Although it won prizes in major film festivals, 'The Big Bad Swim' was not released to hordes of theaters across America, but was distributed in DVD form, and shown in theaters selectively.

It is unfortunate that 'The Big Bad Swim' never had the marketing hype of a Hollywood release, considering how many sinkers Hollywood HAS released this year, such as 'I Know Who Killed Me.' 'The Big Bad Swim,' a genuinely good independent film, has had to swim upstream on its own.

Nevertheless, in 'The Big Bad Swim,' actress Paget Brewster is endearing and believable as Amy, the wired-to-breaking point math teacher who not only is being dumped by her husband but also is about to lose her job, and ends up taking a gamble on a new life. TV soap actor Jeff Branson-- who is HOT-- plays Noah, the earnest, vulnerable swim teacher who goes the extra pool length to help his students overcome their fears, and discovers he can learn from his students. Pretty, sexy Jess Weixler (did I just see her in a bank commercial?) deftly plays Jordan, the swimmer-to-be who works two jobs, one as a pole dancer, the other as a blackjack dealer. Her character provides the catalyst for change amongst the ensemble, but is the least understandable of the characters, because of a lack of a 'back story' or motivation as to why she does what she does. Jordan is young enough to still live at home with a ubiquitous, video-camera-toting younger brother who spies on her. However, her parents are not shown to be involved with her life in any way, which seems odd. There's no drunken mother or abusive father here to explain why a normal, attractive girl from a Connecticut suburb would choose to be a self-medicating pole dancer who debases herself for loutish bachelor parties.

Despite this quibble, 'The Big Bad Swim' succeeds, in large part, because it is a happy, feel good film.

As one might expect, learning to swim is the metaphor for life. Ultimately it's better to jump in with both feet, and get in the swim, rather than sit on the deck, because life happens to you anyway.

The Big Bad Swim is a great date movie, a great dorm movie, a great 'what haven't I seen' movie, and men like it as well as women.


One of the many backwoods horror's that came out in the early eightes and fortunately this is one of the better ones. Yes it has a cheesy plot but I was pleasantly surprised at this film, because I thought it was really good and really entertaining, although the killer could have been made a bit more scarier he just looked like a fat slob.

First of all, we have the local sheriff or whatever the hell he is, who warns them not to go to those mountains as they are very dangerous. But when the teens arrive, it doesn't seem very dangerous at all, well according to me anyway. It's a shame that we don't get movies like this any longer, and if we do, it's usually some boring terrible film.

This movie more relies on tension and being scary than gore, because the gore factor is really low in this movie which I wasn't pleased with but other than that it's still a great movie.

All in all you'll have to search long and hard to find this movie and if you do find it, you will like it and also watch out for ending with the final girl and the killer it's totally not what you'd expect.


Channel zapping one night I just caught the start of this movie and it hooked me from the beginning. It tells the sad story of an adopted child, Adam, whose mother left him after birth. The movie takes us through his childhood, and makes us discover a very disturbing fact from Adam's past. I will not reveal more, but it is a very in-depth movie and will intrigue you for sure. This was one of Jimmy Smits best roles in my opinion.


AntiTrust could have been a great vehicle for Rachael Leigh Cook, but the director cut out her best scenes. In the scenes that she are in, she is just a zombie. She is involved in a sub-plot that is simular to a sub-plot in 'Get Carter', but she handles the sub-plot better in 'Get Carter'.(I blame the director) The director's homage to Hitchcock was corny. (It's the scene were Ryan Philippe's charactor realizes he may not be able to trust Tim Robbin's charactor, at least I think it's a homage to Hitchcock. The DVD shows the scenes that were cut out. I think the director should have trust his instincts and not listen to the test audiences.


Trekkies is really not a movie about Star Trek fandom. It's a freak show about those Star Trek fans who have no sense of reality. As a freak show, it's fine. But it is a mistake to think that this movie gives you an insight into Star Trek fans. Most Star Trek fans cringe at what this movie shows.


This is a truly wonderful love story. I liked the songs, however even if you do not, you have to love the story. Peter O'Toole is at his best and Petula Clark is doing fine as well. I first saw this when I was about 13 and loved it then. Now in my forties, I still enjoy it, probably even more. Still makes me cry and laugh and feel good. It is a movie to watch only with a new age guy or by yourself as it is a chick flick. But whats wrong with that. Need a little romance and maybe a little cry, try this movie.


Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) is unjustly accused of killing his unfaithful wife. The night she was murdered he was out with a mystery woman who refused to give him her name. After accused of the murder, the police visit all the places he had been with her, but people only remember him being alone. He's sentenced to die and his secretary (Ella Raines) sets out to find the murderer herself because she loves him.

This was made as a B film from Universal (look at the cast--all character actors and one star--Franchot Tone--on the decline). The budget was small and the cast mostly unknown but what came out is one of the best film noirs of the 1940s. It's beautifully directed by Curt Siodmak and has a fantastic script that came from an excellent book by William Irish (a pen name for Cornell Woolrich). It moves quickly and just looks fantastic. And there's the infamous jam session with Raines and Elisha Cook Jr. which just comes off the screen with incredible sexual energy (I'm surprised the censors didn't cut it).

There are only a few flaws that prevent this from being perfect. Tone gives a dreadful performance. He looks ghastly and he's just horrible. Also Curtis is stiff and bland as Henderson. You really wonder why Raines loves him--he's so unemotional. But Raines is pretty good in the lead role. She's pretty and full of life. Also the last scene when the murderer is after her never rings true. He's hardly a threat physically and her reactions just seem overstated.

Still I'm giving this a 9. A really great film--flaws aside.


OK, so Mr. Agrama's company (which is involved in some dubious business with former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi) produced a horrendous mish-mash by a Mr. Carl Macek.

What is this horrendous mish-mash I'm talking about? Well, Macek took three entirely unrelated Japanese sci-fi animated series (namely, Macross, Southern Cross and Mospeada), added TONS of dialogue - believing firmly that the American audience is too dumb to understand the narrative and artistic virtue of silence - , edited the whole lot heavily for violent content, added some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, dubbed it using some of the worst voice actors this side of acting Hell (Reba West's singing was - and still is - unbearable and a total outrage, especially compared to Mrs. Mari Iijima)... And the result was an 85-episode series with hundreds of continuity problems and plot holes.

Of course, the mecha were cool to look at (especially those in the 'Macross Saga') and the plot parts that remained unscathed were good. But whatever was good about Robotech was not the result of Macek's work or the 'voice talents' he recruited. It was because of the toils and efforts of the (uncredited - why? would I be too bold to accuse HG of plagiarism here?) Japanese creators. Those of us who eventually got wind of the real deal and compared the originals to Robotech now wish we had never been exposed to Robotech. The originals are so much better, naturally, and make a lot more sense.

Robotech, however, DID something worthwhile: it prompted legendary anime creator Leiji Matsumoto to start a campaign for the protection of Japanese anime creators' intellectual property from such unauthorized and uncalled-for reworkings that talentless people like Carl Macek produce.


I got to see this on the plane to NZ last week, and was wondering how it would measure up to both the UK film and the book. I have to say I was favorable impressed. If anything the fanatical attachment to the Red Sox during the lean years works even better than the original devotion to Arsenal FC, who have had success through the years. As a Brit I was also interested to see that you don't need to understand baseball to get what's going on. One question springs to mind - Was the screenplay written using the Sox as the team even before they finally broke the Curse of the Bambino? Or was another team in the frame? As a Red Sox fan myself (weird I know, a Brit who understands baseball) I have to say that it added to the enjoyment.


I served as a Corpsman at Parris Island in the late 60's, a little over 10 years after 'The D. I.' was shot. I was in some of the barracks where they filmed some of the indoor scenes. I knew a lot of Drill Instructors and a lot of recruits. I think the movie is as close as any movie to showing the life of a recruit and that of a Drill Instructor. Without a doubt, I think it is the best thing Jack Webb ever did. If you have been in the military, you need to see this movie. This was the way it was. It shows how important it is to take a bunch of raw recruits and turn them into men ready to defend our country. One feature I found fascinating is that most of the characters are played by real Marines, not actors.


People tend to complain about the number of films being made about mentally disabled people. I don't see this as a valid criticism, no more than complaints of too many films about any sort of people. Jaco van Dormael does a wonderful job with the script and direction. Daniel Auteuil and Pascal Duquenne work perfectly together, with Duquenne basically playing himself. The film covers a surprisingly large ground of events, and isn't simply content to go over what was seen in 'Rain Man'. The ending is rather depressing, but it doesn't ruin the wonderful story that has come before.

7.8 out of 10


Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.

This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.

Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.

Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.

The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.

I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!


I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?

Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.

What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.


I honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!

This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family movie!!


I agree with the other 9 and 10 star reviews. I saw this at the South By Southwest Film Festival in Austin. Of the 20 films I saw,7 were really good and this was the best one for me. I'm a sucker for movies that have plot devices where characters go through transformations that totally change their lives. The excellent acting was mostly done by people involved in TV, or it was their first movie. It was written and directed by Jay Floyd. This was his debut as a director. Jay's day job is apparently as a clearance administrator for lots of famous films. Forgiving the Franklins was a total delight and extremely funny in spots. This is one movie where I would buy the DVD and re-watch it, truly a high complement from me. Well done, Jay, yes...give up your day job!


I attended one of the premieres last night and have the following observations:

1. Just because you've directed a ton of music videos DOES NOT make you qualified to make movies. The movie had an overabundance of lingering shots that made no sense, horrible angles, and terrible lighting. The editing didn't help this mess at all. When 'Dixie' shows up late for the memorial service her mother remarks about her hand but it's never clear what the heck she's talking about.

2. The plot had promise, but the script was thin and full of Ford Truck sized holes. We never get to understand what drives the characters, what's really behind the conflicts they all have with each other or exactly how they resolve them. Sixteen years of distance is wiped out in 4 days seemingly by magic. The deep conversations were marred by stupid clichés. (In fact, the whole town was one big cliché of southern life.) Half the audience groaned when Toby drawled 'Ya got my blood runnin through your veins gurl'...and we were treated to that insipid line not once, but TWICE! The revelations were yawn inducing, and the dramatic confessions boiled down to 'I was stupid and stubborn'.

3. The acting was okay considering the wreck of a script they had to work with. Toby was dark and brooding most of the film, but when he smiled and lightened up he was charming. It's a shame he didn't have more screen time like that. Kelly Preston's acting chops are pretty rusty and it shows. Lindsay Haun is talented and it's certainly not her fault the writers made her character so unlikeable in the beginning that you don't blame her father for not coming to look for her. Burt Reynolds and Tess Harper were able to make more of this movie but still looked more or less lost. (And indeed, their characters get lost in this film!)

4. If you're a Toby fan you'll love the songs. But often the movie felt like a scene was forced in just so they could feature one of his songs--or the artists on his record label. For instance, the movie's official love song is 'Crash Here Tonight'. You'd think that would play around a tender love scene, but nope...we hear about 45 seconds of it as he's heading to a memorial service. It was as if they said 'well, we gotta use this song somewhere'. The song 'Broken' is haunting and the best thing to come out of this movie.

In summary...a promising plot never fully develops and the movie is horribly uneven as it forceably tries to be a vehicle for Toby Keith's music and product placement for Ford Trucks. It goes from being about people rebuilding broken bridges to trying to be about the power of music but the story is told so poorly that both points get lost in this overgrown music video. I like Toby and really wanted to like 'Broken Bridges' but the people he counted on to make this movie let him down and deserve one of his famous boots you know where.


This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.

Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the 'real world' is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.

No doubt many cineastes will find 'Northfork''s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch 'Charlie's Angels' or something. (Sigh) If you insist....

In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.


I Sell the Dead is a big, sloppy horror comedy that refuses to take itself too seriously. This has advantages and drawbacks. The 85 minutes of the film breeze by and the film is full of bits sometimes funny, sometimes scary, sometimes gory, occasionally all three at once, but the individual bits are much better than the sum of the film's parts.

The story, such as it is, follows professional grave robber Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan). Arthur's partner-in-crime Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden) has just had his head chopped off for murder and Arthur has one night left before his own head is forfeit for the same crime. Arthur insists that he is innocent of murder, but there are plenty of other crimes that he is willing to confess to when bribed with Irish Whisky by a Catholic priest (played by Ron Perlman).

Since the movie is a series of grave-robbing anecdotes confessed by Arthur, it becomes a sort of horror anthology - a series of disjointed tales, all linked by a similar cast (Arthur and Willie) and a similar theme (grave robbing). Like most horror anthologies, there is no consistent mythology, because all mythologies are true and happening simultaneously even when they contradict one another.

It probably didn't help that I saw this film the same night as Trick 'r Treat, a horror anthology that avoids all of the traps that I Sell The Dead falls into. In fact, Trick 'r Treat, designed as an anthology, tells a more unified, consistent story than I Sell The Dead which is intended to be a united narrative.

The other problem with the film (and I recognize that this is insane nit-picking) is the way the film plays fast and loose with history. Grimes is killed with a Guillotine. We might be able to stretch a point and say that he is killed by a Scottish Maiden, a precursor to the French Guillotine, but the Scottish Maiden was abandoned in 1709 and this film is set a good hundred years later since Burke and Hare are mentioned and they were executed for murder in 1829. Grave robbing as an industry became obsolete with the passage of the Anatomy Act (1832) so the film must take place before then.

I know that bringing this up is the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we are clearly dealing with a universe where all sorts of dead, undead and legendary dead are possible, but the easiest way to anchor a fantasy, to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief is to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of. And it's not like the history of grave robbers or body snatchers or resurrectionists (call it what you like) is a boring story.

The most frustrating thing is that writer.director Glenn McQuaid clearly does know the history, especially the good bits. As an example, when Grimes first takes on Arthur as his apprentice he correctly explains to Arthur that as resurrectionists, they don't steal the clothes from the dead, because stealing corpses is a misdemeanor, punishable by a small fine, while stealing clothes is a felony, punishable by deportation or possibly even death. So you would expect Wille and Arthur to strip the corpse at this point (and for the rest of the film) but of course they don't. You could accuse the director of ignoring his writer's script, but not when the writer and the director are the same person.

My point isn't that there should have been a lot of buck-naked corpses in the film, my point is that if you are going to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that Willie and Arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it is, than you do have to pursue that thought to its logical conclusion, even if that means that Willie and Arthur wind up chasing a zombie through a graveyard trying to rip his or her clothes off and stuffing them back in the empty coffin, so that they don't get deported for stealing the walking corpse's clothes, otherwise don't bring up the matter at all.

Historical nerdiness aside, I Sell The Dead is worth a rental as a slight but funny horror film that could have been much more.


Having enjoyed Joyce's complex novel so keenly I was prepared to be disappointed by Joseph Strick's and Fred Haines's screenplay, given the fabulous complexity of the original text. However, the film turned out to be very well done and a fine translation of the tone, naturalism, and levity of the book.

It certainly helps to have read the original text before viewing the film. I imagine the latter would seem disjointed, with very odd episodes apparently randomly stitched together, without a prior reading of the text to help grasp the plot.

It's amazing to see how 'filthy' the film is, given that it was shot in Dublin in 1967. The Irish film censors only, finally, unbanned it for viewing by general audiences in Ireland as late as 2000 (it was shown to restricted audiences in a private cinema club, the Irish Film Theatre, in the late 1970s). Joyce's eroticism is not simply naturalistic and raunchy, it offers many wildly 'perverse' episodes. Never mind that so many of these fetishes were unacceptable when the book was published in 1922 - they were still utterly taboo when the film was made in 1967.

It is astonishing and heartening to watch the cream of the Irish acting profession of the 1960s, respected players all, daring to utter and enact Joyce's hugely transgressive text with such gusto.

Bravo!


HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.


Now for the truth, its very very weak storyline - for a Walt Disney film its total rubbish. When the robinson appear, the films all over the place, I was shocked how poor it was. It like 'alice in wonderland' gone wrong!. It feels like they were short on ideas some mashed some crazy rubbish together to try and get away with it - and they don't. After that, I sat there wishing for the end. My younger brother lost interest half way through and was confused by the story. The characters are weak and after the robinsons appear you don't care about the ending, you just want the film to finish. Its a film to forget, and forget quickly. If you've got some spare time, don't waste it on this.


Despite its New York setting & New York characters, 'Summer in the City' is not an American movie, it is better than that. What is most unusual is the mixing of styles and genres. Director Niami's shows a deft touch in combining comedy with tragedy, pathos with drama.

The secret of Niami's success appears to be a smorgasboard of great characters - each could have their own film built around them - and then filling them out with beautifully realized performances from one of the most wonderfully eclectic casts one would struggle to find in the same country let alone in the same movie, ranging from Bai Ling to Ornella Muti, Robert Burke to Peter Stormare who here reveals that he has a lot more in him than the bad guy stereotypes he plays in Hollywood pictures. Even Sandra Bernhard is funny here !

An added bonus, cream on the substantial cake, is John Cale's soundtrack.


It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be 'The Next Officer and a Gentleman.' There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.

We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG ('I want you DOR,' the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual 'wise teacher' character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.

The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go 'so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say 'oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie...' What's more baffling is the great 'reviews' I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.


Proof if ever more was needed, that an action movie, irregardless of its budget, can LOOK better with more setups (or cameras), closer shots, and many more cuts. The 'Martini' generation has moved on to John Woo. Deep Fault could be better for a work over in the cutting room. Ray


Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however.


What a mess!! Why was this movie made? This, and other movies of its 'caliber' should be teaching tools on how not to make a movie. Children may like it, but anyone over 10 may or will disapprove. To make matters worse was the fact that such great talent like Whoopi Goldberg and Armin Mueller Stahl were entirely wasted in a film unworthy of any notice.


This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...

This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...


This was the third time I tried to watch this film. The previous two times, I found the beginning so sickeningly sweet and 'schmaltzy' that I just stopped watching. However, now that I am a little older and more compulsive, I forced myself to watch all the film and I was very surprised to see that I actually liked it quite a bit. So, I look at the movie much the same way I would look at swimming in the ocean when the water temperature is 70 degrees (that's about 21-22 degrees Centigrade for all those metric-lovers out there). Sure, the water is terribly cold and shocking at first, but if you FORCE yourself to stay in the water, you'll get used to it--so resist that urge to jump out right away!!

The film begins with a lengthy exchange between Flynn and his daughter, played by a lispy Patti Brady. Some may find there conversations very cute and endearing, though others may find them a bit hard to take since these moments are so gosh-darn sweet! In a way, it was some amazing acting by Flynn because it's hard to imagine him in real life having kids or acting domestic especially that he wanted to be faithful to one woman in this film--now THAT'S ACTING!! NEVER SAY GOODBYE concerns the divorced couple, Flynn and Parker, and their mutual desire to remarry. Since they both love each other as well as their lispy kid, it seems like a foregone conclusion that they will once again tie the knot. However, there are some serious problems standing in their way: Lucille Watson (who plays her usual over-bearing and controlling mother-in-law character), Flynn's girlfriend (after all, he is Errol Flynn and he is divorced, so you gotta expect him to have a girl SOMEWHERE) and a marine (played by Forrest Tucker).

Not unexpectedly, all this does get worked out by the end and everyone lives happily ever after. However, despite it being formulaic and predictable, the film is a winner because it is so much fun to watch. Flynn, despite his reputation as an action-adventure hero, is very good with comedy-romance and it's just a lot of fun to watch him. Also, the film has the ever-scene chewing Cuddles Sakall--he's just so gosh-darn cute and sweet that he is perfect in this type of film. And, despite the sweetness, the film is pretty well-written. The bottom line is the film is FUN.

So my recommendation is that you DO watch this film and force yourself not to retch at the sickeningly sweet aspects of the film. Once you've gotten over this, the rest of the film is a picture that is well worth your time.


Narratives  whether written, visual or poetic epics  generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic  the core, so to speak  story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all.


Moron and girlfriend conduct some ritual to resurrect the dead, in attempt to prove that the dead can not be brought back to life. Not surprisingly, they do resurrect a dead soul who commences chopping them up with an axe, and the next day some college aged people are telling the story around a campfire. The guy with the axe turns up and starts hacking up the idiots telling the story. The group calls the cops, the cop sees blood splattered all over and thinks it's a mountain lion(!?) and soon after is axed by some deformed killer who may or may not be a ghost.

Moronic little splatter movie which was filmed in broad daylight but where several characters are carrying flashlights and talking as though it were the middle of the night, and wanting to send up a signal flare to attract attention. One guy has a gun in one hand and bullets in the other but doesn't bother to load it, then after he finally loads it, he has several opportunities to shoot the killer but doesn't bother to, because that would end the movie too early. Then he throws the gun away! Also detrimental is characters who show no emotion and don't look the least bit concerned after their friends are chopped up into pieces and lousy effects (the human heart looks like a piece of chicken meat, the car blown up at the end clearly was a model car) and awful dialogue and some really ugly female nudity doesn't help. And in the end it tries to get away with it's incoherence by saying that it was all the invention of the same college aged people telling campfire stories at the start of this movie.

Then the killer turns up for real in the last scene hacks them into pieces. Again.

Mediocre of it's kind, good only for some unintended laughs.

*1/2 out of ****


It's rare to see film that strikes out in every aspect but 'Caligula' surely must hold this title. I'm not sure what is more horrendous; the violence, the sexual perverseness, the acting or the plot (or severe lack thereof).

The two and a half hours basically follows the ascension of the infamous Roman Caesar 'Caligula' to to throne in 37AD and shows the atrocities and perverseness he supposedly committed whilst in power. The acting is lifeless and dull - but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously knowing that this film was severely lacking of anything legitimately interesting, the directors decided to throw in as much nudity and orgy scenes as was conceivably possible. But don't be fooled, these scenes don't ease or take focus away from the hideousness of this film. The camera work is shoddy, dialog is laughable in fact you'd have to congratulate Malcolm McDowell (playing Caligula) for keeping a straight face through such farcical lines. And then there's the violence....

If you are about to see the film be prepared. Some atrocities are committed in the film (not just through the writing) but through disgusting violent acts which are of little point or purpose other than to repulse the viewer. This is only objective this movie achieved. One must wonder how the makers of this film thought that bestiality, necrophilia and castration (just to name a few) would be appealing to anyone. When it belatedly ends after two and a half hours you take nothing from this film other than some disturbing images and the knowledge that you may have witnessed the worst film ever.

You've been warned


Although not one of Vonnegut's better known works, it is a definite 'must-see'. Interestingly thought out, I especially like how the director filmed the couple in love.


So one person says, 'This movie is a beautiful, delicate exploration of West German life after World War II.' And the other says, 'Former Nazis living in bombed out buildings, and the movie is 'beautiful, delicate'?' And the first sits there nodding, takes another sip of coffee. 'I can't explain. Just see it.'


This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.

Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.

Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.

In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.

This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work


my girlfriend, as we walk in the cold London evening in leicester square, after the movie, says: if they didn't speak English and they didn't show the stadium, you could have thought this was the slums of a South American city or some other slum anywhere in the world,not Queens in NYC.

Ramin Bahrani is , right now, my official hero, because he seems to have devoted his work to show not the OTHER face of American, but the REAL face of America.

Ramin Bahrani's movies are like Ladri di biciclette, or Germania anno zero, or Roma citta' aperta. Chop shop is reality turned into a movie, is more realistic than a documentary, in fact I think Ramin Bahrani's movies are more realistic than documentaries. This is a great movies, but don't expect any car chase or shooting. This movie is about tragic lives on the margin of the wealthiest , richest country in the world.


Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans.


As a long time Red Sox fan, I just had to go see the movie. It was great! While there can never be enough live footage from the miracle 2004 Red Sox season, there were great shots of some of my favorite Red Sox players. While the movie is certainly a chick flick, it has enough baseball footage from the amazing 2004 Red Sox comeback to make it one of my top 10 movies of all time. I especially enjoyed the Red Sox fans that were part of Ben's baseball family. The scene where Ben is meeting with his buddies on draft day to determine who will get seats to certain games is hilarious! A must see if you are looking for a wholesome movie to watch with your spouse, date, or significant other...especially if you are a baseball fan...and even more especially if you are Red Sox fan!!!


This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features.

I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film.


spoiler--

In 1993, African-American director/actor Mario Van Peebles followed up the tremendously popular urban-action film New Jack City with 'Posse'. The film was co-written and directed by Van Peebles, who also stars as the main character, Jessie Lee.

Plot: The film begins at the turn of the 20th century, when the United States was embroiled in the Spanish-American war. Apparently a time when the U.S. justice system could send convicts into military service, Jessie Lee finds himself an unwilling enlisted man, serving with an all-black cavalry troop in Cuba. Some of his compatriots include Little J (Stephen Baldwin), fast-talking Weezie (Charles Lane) and the towering-but-simple Obobo (Tiny Lister). They find a hidden chest of gold on a reconnaissance run and decide to keep it. However, the ambitious, bigoted Colonel Graham (Zane) finds out about the gold, and is apparently willing to kill Jessie Lee and company for it. A shootout between the Graham's forces and Jessie Lee's leaves the colonel blind in one eye, and his forces retreat. Jessie Lee's ragtag crew manage to smuggle themselves (and the gold) back to New Orleans, but it turns out that Graham isn't far behind. Jessie Lee and his allies are forced to go on the run, heading west, to a town called Freemanville. Apparently, Freemanville was founded by blacks in the years following the Civil War. Jessie Lee's father, 'King David', was the charismatic preacher who co-founded the town. However, as is revealed in intermittent flashbacks, King David was soon brutally murdered by a white mob, in a parallel of the Ku Klux Klan terror campaigns that began around the same time. Jessie Lee and company eventually find their way to Freemanville, only to find that the townsfolk aren't exactly glad to see himespecially when Sheriff Bates (Richard Jordan) of a nearby white township makes it clear that he wants Jessie Lee and his partnersdead or alive. Carver (Blair Underwood) is the sheriff and de facto mayor of Freemanvilleand his own agenda may not square with having Jessie Lee around.

Analysis The action sequences are all very credible, and Mario Van Peebles turns in a good performance as the brooding hero. In the aftermath of the success of New Jack City, it was almost expected Van Peebles would helm a sequel, or at least a similar urban-action follow-up. Instead, Van Peebles looked 100 years into the past, creating a mostly-black Western (effectively 'updating' the black-themed Westerns of the 1970's), and continuing the legacy of largely-forgotten black-themed cowboy films from the early 20th century. Unlike New Jack City, the film was independently financed, and originally released through Gramercy/Polygram Entertainment. Allegedly, execs at the major studios balked when Van Peebles pitched 'Posse' to them. Some of the more 'curious' casting at the time involved rappers Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc as Father Time and Angel, respectively. In certain interviews, Mario Van Peebles has said that he often likes to cast against type; in the years since, the trend of casting rap singers in non-musical films would become almost commonplace. Keen viewers will notice several cameos by various entertainment personalities: Black-action film veterans like Isaac Hayes ('Truck Turner'), Pam Grier ('Foxy Brown') and Larry Cook ('The Spook who Sat by the Door') show up, as does stand-up legend Nipsey Russell, not to mention TV producer Stephen J. Cannell (who hired the junior Van Peebles to star in 'Sonny Spoon' years earlier). The film is bookended with Woody Strode ('Spartacus') in a key role.


'I am ... proud of 'Head',' Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.

Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: 'You figure it out.'

You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make 'Head' is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: 'Head' is not The Monkees TV show.

So what we have here is a 'psychedelic documentary' about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. 'Head' is a movie that could only come from those 'inside the box'. By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.

'Head', therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in 'Head', a guy admits, 'I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years.' Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of 'Things are not as they seem.' Remember the old joke, 'Everything you know is wrong'? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own 'manufactured image' and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind 'Head'? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that 'Head' is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.

Largely, the insiders responsible for 'Head' seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of 'Head' want you to know that poor 'information' is a far greater danger.

Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, 'What's wrong?' 'I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it.' The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. 'Head' goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.

The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. 'Head' is either a movie that creates itself 'as we go along', or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just 'Pot meets advertising', as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: 'The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want.'

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.

Match, cut.


Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most

famous for 'Zombie,' and the absolutely unwatchable 'The

Psychic' and 'Manhattan Baby.' Well, add this to the unwatchable

list.

The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold

mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed

stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic

because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,

and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat

action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not

before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with

my high school girlfriend.

Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with

smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you

crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are

laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are

attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on

the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been

spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting

wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a

while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.

I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway

just to see what the heck was happening.

There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me

do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,

you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not

appear in the film in any context whatsoever. 'Conquest' is a con

job. What MST3K could have done with this!

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female

nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.


This was a letdown in many ways. The location filming in Ireland, though quite beautiful at times, cannot save this uninspired flick. Greg Evigan and Alexandra Paul, as the married couple trying to get their marriage back on track and who inherit a haunted mansion, just aren't interesting characters. Paul, towards the end of the film, becomes incredibly annoying and one wishes she would just close her mouth and shut up, as it seems she is screaming as if it has just become an Olympic event! Other problems with this film are odd segments that have nothing to do with the core of the film, such as the opening sequence with two cleaning women and the woman in a bed with a severed hand climbing over her writhing, naked body. Although the woman is quite adequate doing this it does nothing storywise. One is left thinking the production team needed to pad out a short running time and just tossed in some padding and a bit of T and A. The CGI effects are cartoonish as well and the fiery finale rivals co-executive producer Roger Corman's much earlier and far superior film The Fall Of The House Of Usher in all its ineffective cheapness. Any attempt at true tension and suspense, and as a result chills, are thrown out the window in this low budget bust. If you like images of Ireland you might find something here but you would do better renting or buying a travelogue. Skip this unless you are undiscriminating and think plot is secondary. Rent another low budget ghost story(if you can find it) titled The Woman In Black and see how good and scary a movie can be. This was a wasted opportunity.


But to be a little more precise I do not think that it is as bad as it actually could be. Eventhough the actors (famous to semi-famous) didn't do a very great job. Directors fault? Could be the script as well hard for me to say? Anyway, if you are after a lot of cool guns and action this is not the movie for you but they do run around with a lot of ww2 vintage guns. Sort of fun :) Well I guess I could say more but it just doesn't feel as if it's worth it. If you are desperate enough or a Hackman freak see it otherwise don't!

Live well and prosper


One of the worst movies I've ever seen with Robert De Niro, The Fan is a pointless cliché of an exercise in slasher flicks. It tries to spin or twist the genre with preposterous plot lines of a a crazed fan turned psychotic - the movie meanders into nothing. (spoiler) We're to believe that a knife-wielding idiot has access to and murders a baseball player in a lavish hotel with no witness, security, or cameras? The movie is nonsense trying to tug at our heart-strings through the hoopla of baseball ending up mockingly unsophisticated and gimmicky. Not sure what all the actors were thinking when they got onboard this razzie. This is as big a dud as they come. Stay far away if you prefer thought in your movies


I had some time to kill before watching football so I saw this movie being offered on the scifi channel and it literally after watching it I thought I had encountered my version of mentally walking the Bataan death march as my conscious was beaten into submission by the awful movie which ripped off the Mummy series and Jurassic Park. It was so bad that I thought the opening credits were the highlight of the movie and then it went into such a abysmal descent that it made the recent drop in the stock market seem like a hiccup. The acting was so bad that I was hoping that one and all would be buried at the end. The lead by Casper Van Dien made me long for the high caliber acting of Steven Seagal in 'On Deadly Ground' as his line reading was so wooden that Woody Woodpecker was thinking of making a cameo to sit on his shoulder. I also noticed that his emotional range is so limited that I was under the impression my kitten was more expressive when asking for popcorn to eat . The direction was so abysmal I looked back yearning to my nephew's grade 3 play recital which had more pace and better vision and the fact that this movie seems to be have spliced together from afterthoughts of the aforementioned movie franchise it can not even be thought of as a homage. The FX of the movie was so bad that I thought the director and producers were enviormentally friendly by recycling cheap special effects from grade Z horror flicks from yesteryear. What Robert Wagner, Tom Bosley and Geoffrey Lewis were doing in this movies is beyond me and they should look at litigation against their agents for misrepresentation for getting them involved with such a dreck of a movie. My warning to one and all is watch this movie at your peril as this movie may cause your IQ to diminish with prolonged viewing. On a side note I noticed at IMDb that sometimes salaries for movies are published I was wondering if their is a way that actors that should give the salaries back for their poor performances in such movies. Beware and be safe avoid at all costs.


After hoo-hooing American Indians scalp number one son, frontiersman Bruce Bennett (as Daniel Boone) seems, at first, like he wants to get even; but, he really wants to make friends with the natives. When sad-eyed Indian chief Lon Chaney Jr. (as Blackfish) also loses number one son, it gets more difficult to clear up misunderstandings. Apparently, this was Republic Pictures' attempt to do for their 'Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer' what Disney Studio's had successfully done with 'Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier' (1955).

The 'Dan'l Boone' song, whistled and sung by a group of children in a wagon, did not follow Fess Parker's 'Davy Crockett' up the Hit Parade. Singer Faron Young (as Faron Callaway) doesn't perform the title song (perhaps wisely); he does sing 'Long Green Valley', and makes a good impression as a blond boyfriend for Boone's daughter. But, Spanish actor Freddy Fernandez is the film's most valuable player. In a cute scene, Mr. Fernandez reminds Mr. Young the name of the character ('Susannah') he is supposed to be in love with.

**** Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer (10/5/56) Ismael Rodríguez ~ Bruce Bennett, Lon Chaney Jr., Faron Young, Freddy Fernandez


An obvious cash-in on the *Insert Monster Here* On A Plane gimmick, Flight Of The Living Dead is about what you'd expect it to be.

The film has little or no plot, which is what you'd expect from a film of this type. Although, it is fun in parts, I must say. The Zombie-action is particularly entertaining. Once the film picks up, it never stops; the pacing is solid.

The practical special effects are pretty good, but the CGI is terrible and distracting.

The ending seems to leave the film open to a sequel. Let's hope that doesn't come to fruition.

If you're a die-hard fan of the zombie sub-genre of horror films, I'd recommend it to you; it's worth at least one watch. However, if you're just an avid fan of the genre, leave it on the shelf.

3/10


I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text.

One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare.

Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph.D to understand and enjoy it.


A friend of mine loves tacky horror films so I often get to see low budget stuff like this. This is, however the first time I have been compelled to write a review of one...

Put simply this is probably the worst film I have ever seen! Even worse then Boggy Creek II!

The entire budget for the film seems to have been spent on a brief scene in the middle when Dr. Klaus stands in this chamber thing & turns all vampire-ish.

The only good thing to say about it is that it was hilarious after a few beers (but for all the wrong reasons).


Although I am very familiar with poet Dylan Thomas, I know nothing of his life. Whatever his life and specifically his marriage involved, I would imagine that The Edge of Love (based on the novel) manipulates things a bit, but unless you are a historian or a poet, who cares.

The movie is less about Thomas and more focused on the two most important women in his life. One is his wife Kathrine, and the other is Vera who was his first love. One romantic night on the beach as youths is something that both have tried to put behind them but cannot, now grown up they are good friends. I forgot to mention that this is set during the war. Vera becomes engaged to Captain Will Killing who he gets her pregnant and leaves for war. While he is away, Vera starts to fall for Thomas again, and Kathrine has fallen out of love with him. She is also carrying another man's child. Things get even more emotionally complex when Capt Killig returns

As you can see, it is a very soap operatic plot, and it takes shape in a fairy drab slow manner, with perhaps one too many sequences of sappy dialogue. But all is not lost yet. For a non- Hollywood production, I think that the Edge of Love is about as stylish a picture as one can get. It is certainly more dimensional and intelligent than about 90% of contemporary romances, Hollywood production or not. Some of it has to do with being set during the war, which sets up emotional conflict that feels more convincing and less artificial, a bit like Atonement. this one features acting and cinematography of equal talent to Joe Wright's Oscar nominee, but it is in far greater need for stable pacing and progression. Things are okay at the start and finish, but the middle section is where your attention span may be tested, unless you are deeply and profoundly rooted in the story.

I doubt if The Edge of Love will have that kind of an effect on the viewer, but is a good film to check. it might even make a good date night movie, considering it is so much smarter than the chick flicks that boyfriends are forced to endure today.


I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.


Surprising, witty, funny and totally engaging, the film grabs a little-known reality: that of the student that goes studying in an Erasmus program. The beginning is great, as the story kicks off, of course it has a few lulls on the midsection, and the story drifts sometimes away from the main character, but the viewer won't bother - the movie is young, fresh, and light-hearted, even though I don't agree with the notion that when you do Erasmus and you come back you no longer make part of that universe. But that's just me. The movie is deep, and at the same time very light. Cool and recommendable.


I couldn't stand to watch very much of this crap. This is your standard junk that certain annoying women love- old English era drama with lots of costumes and cliché characters that seem to be plucked from either directly from oliver twist or some other dickens novel. This uses the usual clichés from the Victorian era. Certain idiotic people really think that the whole emotional torture of that culture being so bloody repressed is somehow fascinating and romantic. This is sap, pure and utter junk and boring as watching grass grow. As such it is perfect for women who crave some sort of English countryside snoozer romantic drama in a Victorian setting but for this man this movie is nothing but torture and cruel and unusual punishment to watch a bunch of drab boring scenes with unoriginal characters speaking in that wretched forced and fake English accent.


A rating of '1' does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is.


`Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.

I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary  and inferior  but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr.  knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....

It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color.


Possibly the most brilliant thing about Che: Part Two, as we begin to integrate it with Part One in our minds, is that there is no clarification of why Che chose to confidentially abscond from Cuba after the revolution, no allusion to his experience in the Congo, no clarification of why he chose Bolivia as his subsequent setting for a coup d'etat, no allusion to the political decisions he made as a young man motorcycling across South America, which Walter Salles has given prominent familiarity. Extraordinary focus is given to Che meeting the volunteers who accompany his guerrilla factions. Yet hardly any endeavor is made to single them out as individuals, to establish involved relationships. He is reasonably unreasonable. Che drives an unbreakable doctrine to leave no wounded man behind. But there is no feeling that he is deeply directly concerned with his men. It is the concept.

In Part 1, in Cuba, the rebels are welcomed by the people of the villages, given food and cover, supported in what grows to be a victorious revolution. Here, in Bolivia, not much understanding is apparent. Villagers expose him. They protect government troops, not his own. When he expounds on the onesidedness of the government medical system, his audience appears uninterested. You cannot lead a people into revolution if they do not want to comply. Soderbergh shows U.S. military advisers working with the Bolivians, but doesn't fault the United States for Che's collapse. Che seems to have just misfigured his fight and the place where he wanted to have it.

In showcasing both wars, Soderbergh doesn't build his battle scenes as actions with specific results. Che's men attack and are attacked. They exchange fire with faraway assailants. There is generally a cut to the group in the aftershock of combat, its death toll not paused for. This is not a war movie. It is about one man's reasonably unreasonable drive to endure. There is no elaborate cinematography. Soderbergh looks firmly at Che's inflexible dedication. There are remarkable sporadic visceral shots, but being few they are all the more powerful, such as Che's POV shot during his final beats. There is an abundance of the terrain, where these men live for weeks at a time, and the all-consuming effect is of languor, Guevara himself having malaria part of the time.

Benicio Del Toro, one of the film's producers, gives a champion's performance, not least because it's modest. He isn't portrayed as the cutting edge like most epic heroes. In Cuba, he arises in conquest, in Bolivia, he falls to the reverse, and occasionally is actually difficult to distinguish behind a tangle of beard and hair. Del Toro illustrates not so much an identity as an attitude. You may think the film is too long. I think there's a genuine cause for its breadth. Guevara's affairs in Cuba and particularly Bolivia was not a sequence of episodes and sketches, but an undertaking of staying power that might virtually be called insane. In the end, Che as a whole or in parts is a commercially ballsy movie, one where its director begins by understanding the limits innate in cinematic biography and working progressively within those means.


The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. 'Life's dramas', presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliché touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. 'The Perfect Son' is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen.


First, this was a BRAVE film. I've seen Irreversible and can understand the comparisons. However, I cannot begin to understand the people who've trashed this film. I can see how the end may have come off extreme but I'd be lying if I didn't say I wished that every guy who's ever forced a woman into sex deserved exactly what Jared got. Conversely, it didn't solve anything or make anything better and the fact that the film doesn't pretend to is what made me appreciate it.

The comment prior to this one called the film pathetic and claimed no adult would stick with. I certainly did and intently. I'm 24 years old. The way the film drags made it realistic to me. People have become so used to eye candy and fast paced plots on screen that if you ask them to concentrate too long on one brick in the foundation of a film, not only do they lose interest, they demolish whatever has been built, and call it rubbish. When in actuality it's their lack of patience and comprehension that needs fine tuning and not the product of a creative mind such as Talia Lugacy's.

Rosario Dawson displayed the numbness of self-destruction flawlessly. I think she portrayed Maya pre and post assault with great ease and the transition between the two is an act I rarely ever see done well. Often times, much like the films 'aimed at teens' mentioned in the prior comment, the effects of rape are displayed as either extremely manic and impulsive or terribly depressed, isolated and lifeless. Dawson, in my opinion, manages to perform the balancing act so many survivors fall prey to: drone-like existence in the waking hours, working some dead end job to survive (and distract) and then overindulging in vices in order to lose themselves in the haze of substance abuse rather than face what sobriety brings.

I thought this film told the truth and I appreciated it for finally showing people a different side of rape. So many people let the end of this film devour the middle and the beginning...I believe that Maya's face during the act was the end...not the act itself...not the vengeance or the meaning behind it...just her face...

thank you


Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.

To quote Buffy Summers, 'If the apocalypse comes...beep me.'

Going back to sleep now.


Short synopsis

This film opens with soldiers being released from the company of men. One of them pursues another with a weird scheme the other repeatedly refuses. Later they both get trapped in an office building in which they want to crack a safe during the Christmas holidays. Hostility turns into playful banter and then into a desperate fight for survival (during the bantering they lose all drinkable liquids, so it is really serious). With exposed, well built and well oiled torsos they ram a hole into a wall and finally manage to escape  only to find out that they have been betrayed and set up by women. One gets caught, the other remains free and is not given away by his companion. A last encounter, a last light for a cigarette, adieu l'ami, farewell, friend.

I found it hard not to see closet homosexuals in the two main characters, played by classical he-man superstars Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. They are obviously attracted to each other, their treatment of women is abominable and marked by contempt throughout. The whole story seems to have a strong symbolic undertow, a little like Deliverance. It is also very stylish. The safe the two men want to crack is in a  for the time  ultra modern glass and aluminum tower. It is the seat of a publicity firm, so there are many fancy posters and wall coverings around. The wardrobe is also very good. The ultra stylish Citroen DS (maybe the most modern and elegant car of all times) features large in this movie  perhaps a subtle kind of product placement.

I can recommend this movie for the actor's performances alone. Delon and Bronson are really sharing the top billing, in a manner that struck me as very fair and sporting. Both do a considerable amount of acrobatics. I have never seen Bronson better than here, he really acts - and speaks French throughout, with a heavy accent buy very passably indeed. And it is certainly the man himself we hear. (So the French language version is highly recommended). The police inspector who pursues the two is played by on of my favorite Franch character actors, Bernard Fresson who was Gene Hackman's partner in French Connection II. He is the best brainy police inspector I know. Also very good is former child actress Brigitte Fossey as the young ingénue who, as it turns out, is not so Innocent as it first seems.

Anyone who expects the old in-an-out' of classical heist movies might be disappointed with this film. For those with a little patience this will be a rewarding experience, full of novel and original ideas and directorial quirks, although it my be a little too brutal and sadistic for its own sake.


This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.

The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where 'A Chorus Line' is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for 'A Chorus Line,' which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.

I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?


This remake is entitled 'That Darn Cat', but D.C. the cat is more of a sideline than the major character. Patti Randall was not likable at all in this remake either. She reminded me of one of those high school Goth jerks you read about who have been angry since the day they were born, so they end up opening fire on the rest of the school one day. The federal cop, Kelso was okay, but not as good as the one in the original. I guess Disney was trying to make Christina Ricci and Doug Doug (or whatever goofy name he has) into stars, but they don't hold a candle to Hayley Mills and Dean Jones in the original. I'm an animal lover and a cat lover and I don't blame D.C. for the remake being so much more inferior to the original movie. After all, they nearly cut him out of the whole movie. All in all, a very poor remake.


Chalk this one up in the win column, this was a superb movie. The acting performances were great and the script was equally great.

Helen Hunt was magnificent as the Riverside police officer Gina Pulasky. Gina was a complex character. She was a rookie cop with the Riverside Police Dept. She ended up in an affair with a coworker that she knew had a wife and kids, all the while she took on the dangerous task of going undercover to catch a serial killer.

Jeff Fahey (the Ray Liotta look alike) did a bang up job as the confused, often stammering, police officer that had an affair with Gina. He was stoic as an officer, but he was quite the opposite when it came to dealing with his feelings and his extra-marital affair.

Steven Weber, most notably from the sitcom 'Wings', did a nice job as the quiet, meek, underachieving sociopath. On the surface, he was an innocent loser, but beneath the surface lied a cold hearted killer. Weber really took on the persona of a childlike young adult with an insatiable thirst to kill young boys.

The entire movie was spectacular. Each scene, each verbal exchange let us know more and more about the characters. The production team did a phenomenal job with condensing days, if not weeks worth of events into a 90 minute movie. This movie was a good example of doing a lot with little.


Okay, here is a really short review: this movie blowed. I wish I could just have a review that stated this simple principle, but I must bore you with more bad review type words like 'horrible' 'clichéd' and 'unwatchable.' It's the type of film you watch when you are drunk or are stuck on a desert island with nothing else to do. Here's the premise: the vice president is captured by a terrorist group at a play-off hockey game and only Van Damm can stop the madness. Truly, truly terrible, but then again, I didn't pay to see it the first time around and only my dad felt the absence of girth in his wallet after this movie. I hate the fact he is a Republican and all, but then again, he did spare me the horror of paying for this piece of garbage. Okay, that is now enough space to be recognized as a review, so I bid adieu.


I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it.

If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent 'The Bible' (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called 'Noah's Ark' (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/

I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.

Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good.

Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.

People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie 'The Ten Commandments' was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.

God works in mysterious ways.


I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face/ keep from being fired by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy; one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!!


I know I know it was a good ending but sincerely it was awesome. I love when a movie ends on a terrific dark nature but this time I was impressed with Darth Vader turning against the Emperor I really stayed astonished. The anguishing sequence in that film was when Luke is tortured and defeated by the Emperor/Darth Sidious. He is about to be destroyed when Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, eliminates his dark master. A nice sacrifice. The cinematography of this film is impressive. I was surprised with all the vessels of the Rebel Battle ships and all Imperial War Ships and Super Star Destroyers. I loved the new race they brought on screen the Mon Calomari, the ewoks, the sullesteian (Lando's co pilot) and many more... Most of my favorite scenes are in that film:1-When Vader destroys the Emperor and is fatally wounded. 2- When Luke sees the spirits of Obi-Wan and Yoda and then it shows up Anakin Skywalker (Sebastian Shaw)(the greatest scene in Star Wars) 3- When LEia slays Jabba strangling the Hutt crime lord.

I personally like the script and the battle of Endor presenting a ground and space combat as well the best duel of Star Wars between Darth Vader V.s Luke Skywalker on the Death Star. Post-script: The scenes with Leia in the slave bikini are memorable. 9/10.


The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.

Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.

This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL


The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as, Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a 'positive' reworking of Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael 'Linnett' Connors is Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel. Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle(body double) and fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director & producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields, Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera as if to say, 'here I am!'. When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey, 'I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett the individual. Maybe this movie will help.'


Not a bad film. Somehow I was made to actually root for the Iranians to win the game played in the movie even though I don't know anything about soccer and am not a fan. The ending on the bus was exhilarating.

The film itself deals with the issue of women in Iran, and how they are not allowed to go into sporting arenas amongst men because their swearing is inappropriate for women to hear. Despite this law, some women try to sneak in, but many of them get caught and detained. It's really astonishing that any society could still have such antiquated notions of gender. In an interview, Panahi says his films are documents of history and its injustices, and that one day in the future we can watch these movies and see how Iran once lived. One hopes that future will come sooner rather than later.


Because Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.

The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable.

While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.

The children will like it, at any rate.

It rates a 4.5/10 from...

the Fiend :.