- After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.

- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.

- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.

- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any.


I liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis 'Altaira Morbius.')

Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen ('Dr. John J. Adams'), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice

I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where 'elites' think is so 'heavy' and 'thought-provoking.' That's nonsense. It only appeared 'intelligent' because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!

Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review.


Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a 'C' letter grade from me.

It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.

The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.

For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think 'originality' versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be 'original' and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.

Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an 'encounter specialist'. Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world 'Judge Dredds', are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new 'commissioner' halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).

All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.

There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.

But (you just knew there was a 'But' coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.

Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.

The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.

The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally 'phoning his performance in'--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple 'twists' that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.

That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, 'Okay, get on with the story already'.


Dexter (Kurt Russell) returns from The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes for a new adventure that can stand alone. Dexter, ever the college student prone to misadventure, has an idea for a formula to render things invisible. Dean Higgins (Joe Flynn) is less than impressed and sets his hopes for winning a lucrative science prize with the pupil studying bees. However, the bees sting the student and he turns out to be allergic. There goes THAT chance for a prize. But, wait, Dexter does it! He actually concocts a liquid that makes him invisible. Trouble is, a unscrupulous businessman (Cesar Romero) learns about it and decides he can use that formula, thank you, for something illegal. Can he manage to steal the bottle out from under Dexter's nose? This is a companion movie to the TCWT but one need not have seen the first film to enjoy this one. Russell is a genial leading screw-up who comes through when it really counts. The rest of the cast is also a dream, with Flynn, Romero, Jim Bacchus and others showing why their comic abilities are still held in high regard today. The script is just innocent fun that is charming, with the special effects somewhat simple, by today's standards, but effective nonetheless. If you want to sit down and relive a bygone era or just want to share a quality, G-rated film with your family, this is a great choice. Although it is over 30 years old, there is a great possibility that even now you will see your loved ones giggle away the blues with a showing of this fine flick.


Erroll works for The Department of Public Safety and his job is to check up on sex offenders. Sometimes he pushes the line at his job and beats on the sex offenders. I don't blame him but his boss is ready for him to retire so along comes Allison. Erroll is now training her to do his job and it's like job shadowing. Allison is somewhat naive about the job in the beginning but she doesn't realize how much danger she really is and it's all Erroll's fault. He starts to go to far with his obsession of finding a missing girl when his job isn't to be a police officer.

It's a fairly decent movie about a crazy guy who pushes the boundaries and works outside his 'scope of practice.' Erroll did do a good job but at the sake of the safety of Allison. It has some good mystery to it too and just when I had it figured out, there was more to it.


I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.

Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.

I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a 'Well, I never...' out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.

Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.

Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time.


For my humanities quarter project for school, i chose to do human trafficking. After some research on the internet, i found this DVD and ordered it. I just finished watching it and I am still thinking about it. All I can say is 'Wow'. It is such a compelling story of a 12 year old Vietnamese girl named Holly and an American man named Patric who tries to save her. The ending leaves you breathless, and although it's not a happily-ever-after ending, it is very realistic. It is amazing and I recommend it to anyone! You really connect with Holly and Patric and your heart breaks for her and because of what happens to her. I loved it so much and now I want to know what happens next!


God, did I hate this movie! I saw it at a sneak preview 13 years ago, and I STILL have bad flashbacks. It was, without a doubt, the WORST movie I ever paid to see. It was badly written, badly directed, and (surprisingly considering the cast) badly acted. I would rather be thrown off a rooftop onto razor sharp spikes, and then have my skin peeled off, than to sit through it again. Can you guess I didn't enjoy it?


in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...


Is it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is 'different', someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that 'she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film'. 'She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different'.

This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars.


This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?


Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the 'old favourite' sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.

Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics!


I don't know where this movie was shot, but because it was shot on location, it has the authenticity that this story deserves. It is the story of a young English woman who is taken prisoner by the Japanese in southern Asia at the beginning of WWII, with a group of other English women. There is no prison camp for women so they are forced to march for months from place to place, because the Japanese don't know what to do with them. The courage and resilience of the English women, and the bravery of the Australian soldier who tries to help them, is the core of the movie. This movie is very long, maybe 10 hours, so you can watch it as it was shown on PBS, as a series, which actually adds to the feeling of the endless journey this woman makes from England, across this remote island, and finally Australia. Story, cinematography, location and actors combine to make this a movie not to miss. My only question is why this hasn't been released on DVD!


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** If one were to review the film based on the premise alone, one might think that you were looking at an average animal orientated horror flick. The plot is as follows. A group of documentary filmmakers head off to an island in order to film a documentary about surfing with sharks or blood surfing. (I live in South Africa so it was released as 'Blood Surf.') Admittedly, this seems to have a somewhat interesting idea behind it which, if it were explored further, could have improved the movie somewhat. However, this is not the case as the blood surfing part of the movie is minimal due to the fact that their documentary is interrupted by a rather large salt-water crocodile.

The script is absolutely terrible. A good example of this is whenever someone gets eaten by the crocodile which is a frequent occurrence in this film, no one seems to give a damn. The most anyone person did in the film was to merely toast the victim in a scene which was meant to be poignant but just ended up being laughable due to the fact that the dialogue in this film was of a highly dubious nature. Another thing that really irritates about this film is the fact that they introduce characters who are totally superfluous to the film itself. They introduce a bunch of pirates who can only be seen to be adding another 10 minutes to a mercifully short film.

The acting can be said to be mediocre. It probably would have been a lot more impressive if they did not have such a terrible script to work from. All in all there isn't one person who made a terrible impact on me. Every single person seemed to be a watered-down caricature and in this way, not one of these actors made any sort of impact on me.

The crocodile itself is said to be huge, over 31 feet exactly and this sense of size is well portrayed by the obvious fake of a crocodile that they have provided for us in the film. The crocodile's death at the end of the film is so ridiculously fake and contrived that it makes one's stomach turn. With a huge cry of bravado, the hero of the film announces that he has a plan which turns out be falling down a hill and getting the crocodile to impale himself on a luckily-placed spike at the bottom of this said hill.

All in all, I would say that this film is one which has to be seen for you to believe how bad it could be. What probably seemed like a good idea at the time suffered from a terrible script and an overwhelming sense of low-budgetness which all served to create a truly awful movie.


This episode introduces us to the formal dress uniforms worn here by Captain Picard, Commander Riker, and Lieutenant Tasha Yar. The plot of this episode deals with 2 groups of separate alien delegates, The Anticans and the Selae who try to capture and eat each other at every turn. The 2 sides really hate each other, and it is up to Riker and Tasha to contain them and keep them out of trouble.

Meanwhile a mysterious spacial anomaly goes around the ship injuring and killing a few of the crew members. But at the end of the episode this same spacial anomaly possesses a valuable member of the crowd. Will they be able to rescue him so that they maybe able to continue on with their on going mission of space exploration?

Note: This episode marks Irish actor Colm Meaney's second appearance on TNG after 'Encounter at Farpoint.' He portrays one of Tasha's 'yellow-shirted' security guards.


This norwegian movie is so crap, the actors can not act cause they seems to be reading from a book and the story is so (wannabe) hollywood..the only actor who did a ok job was Haavard Lilleheie..3/10 If you want a really good norwegian movie watch Buddy, great actors and a feelgood story 9/10


The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of 'The Descent', a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.

From the very first moments of 'The Cavern', I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through 'Pulse'. I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.

The scenes where the group is running from the 'creature' are badly directed, especially the retarded 'upside-down-camera', intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.

Sadly, this 'director' will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this 'film', since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.

If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.


Although it's an R rated movie, I really doubt that you'll really enjoy it unless you're a teenager

Why? Because there's no real plot, no character development,no funny jokes.

The only thing that this movie has plenty of is nudity. Tons and tons of naked or almost naked chicks (pretty nice ones I might add) to feast your eyes on.

I really can't understand why this movie has the American Pie title since it's only a bad combination between an erotic movie and a comedy without succeeding in being either of them.

My suggestion is to watch this movie only if you want to see some naked chicks, but you're too shy to rent/buy an erotic movie.

Gave it 1/10 for the 2 smiles i had in the entire movie and another 2/10 for the nice chicks


I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!!


Somehow, I missed many of the early Farscape episodes, so I'm seeing them in all sorts of orders as they are repeated on various channels. I first caught it - entirely by accident - whilst lounging in a hotel room. The first 10 seconds had me completely hooked - THIS is what SF is all about.

The characters are strong; and Moya/Pilot the living ship is what Lexx should have been. The plots vary in quality, but none falls below excellent in my opinion. And I have to mention Rygel - what a gloriously irreverent character! None of your smarmy sugar-coated Star Trek aliens here, this is the real deal - cynical, self-serving and replete with disgusting personal habits, Rygel is the creation of a genius.

Last week the SciFi channel showed 'Out of their minds' (the body-swapping episode). A true classic, I couldn't stop laughing from start to finish...

Long may Farscape grace our screens!


This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.

This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.

Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television.


Dylan and Bobby are boyhood friends and they are in love the way that young boys sometimes are. But Dylan has met a girl and is starting to put those boyhood things aside. Bobby knows that he's not interested in girls and misses what he had with Dylan.

Told as part cheesy 80's pop video, part home movie, part video recollection this film tells a confusing and sad, but all too often true, story that will hit home with many that see it.

This film brings back a lot of memories and struck a very true chord with me but I wish the film maker had gone a bit further and left it on a happier note. Yes, we all love and lose, even when we are young, but there's always tomorrow, especially when we are young.


Just okay film about a woman who is a twin having disturbing visions of her sister in danger back at home. She then returns home to find all is not well and that she is going to have to find out what happened to her sister and why.

This is the sort of thing that kind of almost works but doesn't quite. I can't really put my finger on why it didn't work but it was good enough that I kind of wished it was better, or at least had gotten the little things right- like having the girls who play the twins in the flashbacks be closer in size. I think perhaps thats whats wrong with it there are lots of little things that just are wrong.


There is a fantastic song in Killjoy 2 that goes on about how clowns are usually really nice and fun but Killjoy is a killer. I don't recall the song in the first movie but when singer Olimpia Fernandez sings 'Killjoy, yeah Killjoy 2' is sounds like the 2 may have been added in for this dire sequel. The film is much worse than the first movie and that was really bad. This time the cast, including the usually excellent Debbie Rochon have given up trying and director Tammi Sutton creates no tension and presents merely a dull and steady film. Full Moon pictures produced this during their 'Urban' phase, none of which was very good but none so bad as here.


i found this movie to be mostly a P.O.S.it was low budget,but that isn't the problem.the problem is,the movie is just lame.it doesn't really make a lot of sense.yes,it does explain why things happened,but that's not what i mean.there was just no reason for it all.the movie also moved very slow.the last ice age was quicker than this.also, i think they went overboard a bit in the kills.i don't mean they were too gross,but the killer just seemed to spend too much time smashing his victim over the head,or stabbing his victim. maybe i'm being petty,but i just didn't like the movie.the whole thing seemed like a lower rate version of 'When a Stranger Calls' and maybe that was the whole point.but so what.for me 'When A Stranger Kills' is a 4/10*


The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat.


If you're the kind of movie-goer who enjoys original content and intelligent suspense...then look elsewhere, kids, cause Sleepwalkers really sucks. Usually I'm more eloquent than that, but...wow...this was bad. I especially love it when Charles offers Tanya a ride home, she declines, and then he is seen WALKING HOME. Where's his car?? Anyway, just don't see it, folks. I really want to be more specific, but words escape me. Cats jumping on people. A guy getting stabbed by corn. Cheesey lines up the proverbial 'wazoo'. Just don't see it. Wait, I take that back! See it for writer Stephen King's cameo as the guy who owns the graveyard. He's actually pretty good. Even with guest appearances by Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman, King gives the best performance of the film. But, other than that...wow...BAD.


... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a 'road trip' are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know.


... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.

'A river runs through it' certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.

Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).

I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.

The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.

Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)


Love hurts. That, I think, is the main message Mike Binder's newest film Reign Over Me brings across. Whether that love has caused your relationship to become stagnant, or has brought anger from the one you love cheating for years, or has broken your heart to the point of being unable to open yourself up to the world, love hurts. The great thing about this film, however, is not in its portrayal of these lost souls trying to let their past heartbreaks go, but in the eventual restart of new bonds for the future. No one in this drama is perfect; they are all at some degree trapped emotionally in relationships that they can't free themselves from alone. There is some heavy subject material here and I credit Binder for never making the story turn into a political diatribe, but instead infusing the serious moments with some real nice comedic bits allowing the tale to stay character-based and small in scale compared to the epic event that looms overhead. What could have become a trite vehicle for opinions on how 9-11 effected us all, ends up being a story about two men and a connection they share that is the only thing which can save their lives from a life of depression and regret.

This is a new career performance for Adam Sandler. I like to think that my favorite director Paul Thomas Anderson was the first to see the childish, pent-up anger in his stupid comedies as something to use dramatically. The juvenility of a character like Billy Madison allows for laughs and potty humor, but also can be used to show a repressed man, shy and shutout to the world around hima man with no confidence that needs an event of compassion to break him from his shell. Anderson let Sandler do just that in his masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love and Mike Binder has taken it one step further. Sandler plays former dentist Charlie Fineman whose wife and three kids were killed in one of the planes that took down the World Trade Center on 9-11. That one moment crushed any life that he had and as a result, he became reclusive and started to believe he couldn't remember anything that happened before that day. He really delivers a moving portrait of a man trying to keep up the charade in his head while those around him, those that love him, try and open him up to the reality of what happened and what the future holds. Always on edge and ready to snap at any moment when something is mentioned to spark the memory of his perished family, he goes through life with his iPod and headphones, shutting out everything so as not to be tempted remember.

Reign Over Me is not about Charlie Fineman though, it is about dentist and family man Alan Johnson. A man that has trapped himself into a marriage and dental practice that both have stagnated into monotony, Johnson needs as much help in his life as his old college roommate Charlie does. Played perfectly by the always brilliant Don Cheadle, Johnson has lost his backbone to try and change his life. He has no friends and when he sees Charlie, by chance, one day, his life evolves into something he hasn't felt in 15 years. He revels in the chance to go out with an old friend no matter how much he has changed from the death of his family. Cheadle's character wants to revert back to the college days of hanging out and Sandler's doesn't mind because all that was before he met his wife. The two men get what they want and allow themselves to grow close despite the years of solitude that used to rule their lives. Once they begin opening up though, it is inevitable that the subject of the tragedy will creep up and test the façade they have created for themselves.

The supporting cast does an amazing job helping keep up appearances for the two leads. Jada Pinkett Smith has never been an actress that impressed me and throughout the film played the tough as nails wife nicely, but it is her final scene on the phone with Cheadle that really showed me something different and true. Liv Tyler is a bit out of her element as a psychiatrist, but the movie calls her on this fact and makes the miscasting, perfect casting. The many small cameos are also effective, even writer/director Mike Binder's role as Sandler's old best friend and accountant, (my only gripe here is why he feels the need to put his name in the opening credits as an actor when it is everywhere, considering it is his film). Last but not least is the beautiful Saffron Burrows. She is a great actress and plays the love- crushed divorcée trying to put her life back together wonderfully. A role that seems comic relief at first, but ends up being an integral aspect for what is to come.

Binder has crafted one of the best dramatic character studies I have seen in a long time. The direction is almost flawless, (the blurring between cuts and characters in the fore/ background really annoyed me in the beginning), the acting superb, and the story true to itself, never taking the easy way out or wrapping itself up with a neatly tied bow at the conclusion. Even the music was fantastic and used to enhance, not to lead us emotionally, (why after two great uses of the titular song by The Who did Binder feel the need to use the inferior Eddie Veddar remake for the end, I don't know, but it did unfortunately stick out for me). Reign Over Me is a film about love and how although it can cause the worst pain imaginable, it can also save us from regret and allow us to once again see the world as a place of beauty and hope.


This splicing of THE SEARCHERS is one of the weirdest films I've ever seen, filmed by a Briton in a strange, unfamiliar Mexico. It's often said that the best films about America are made by foreigners, who can approach the familiar with an outsider's eye. But this crackpot film is something else. Though set ostensibly in post-Civil War America, this isn't an America recognisable from myth, cinema, TV etc. The film has an air of timeless fable about it, while dealing specifically with Western mythology.

Director Harvey uses the title horse as a focus for interconnecting stories, all dealing with the traditional Western clash of the primitive and civilisation. The former seems to have the upper hand. The vast scrub and desert of the film's landscape is unbroken, ripe for allegories of the mind. The only brief sites of civilisation are a stagecoach of missionaries and landowners, and their hacienda, from both of which derive behaviour that is anything but civilised.

The basic story intercuts three stories. In one, an aimless deserter, Pike, having lost his trading partner, steals a miraculous horse, Eagle's Wing, so-called because of its grace and speed. In the second, an Indian, White Bull, owner of this horse, waylays a stagecoach, and kidnaps one of its female occupants. In the third, the Spanish men sent to find her ignore this quest in favour of a murderous, plundering spree.

Although a revisionist Western, the treatment of the Indian is problematic. Unlike Pike, his character is never explained, forever inscrutable, denied a voice, except for an excruciating snatch of song. When he's not a strange Other, he's a symbol, whose role isn't entirely worked out - at one point a savage brute, at another he epitomises nature and freedom.

But Pike notes at the beginning that the film will attend to the period of primitivism before civilisation. In many ways the film resembles 2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY, especially its opening sequence. Part of the film's power lies in the connections made between the three disparate characters, forcing us to view the mythic struggles and quests in a different light. Indian culture and Catholicism is linked by superstition, ritual, greed and murder. Both Pike and White Bull are musical and alcoholic. White Bull is demonised by both Pike and the abductee as a 'bastard', unwittingly revealing the tactic of illegitimacy used by colonising whites who infantilised the natives, becoming themselves 'necessary' fathers.

Unlike a traditional Western, concerned with making history, civilisation, and progress, this film is a double detective story, interrogating the past, tracks, remains.

What gives this film its remarkable uniqueness, I think, is, despite Maltin's racism, its Britishness. The climactic stand-off is more like an Arthurian joust. The film itself bravely eschews dialogue for the most part, creating the kind of visual and aural tapestry Malick missed in THE THIN RED LINE, and something few Hollywood directors would have dared. The existential doubling and quest motifs are more European myth than American (resembling another British Harvey Keitel movie, THE DUELLISTS).

Most astonishing is the use of nature. Most Westerns use landscape as an awe-inspiring backdrop: there is little sense of actually living in the West. In many ways, EAGLE'S WING is like a Powell and Pressberger film, with nature a powerful, pantheistic character in its own right - alive, dangerous, hostile, beautiful. There is a sublime scene reminiscent of A CANTERBURY TALE, when jewellery left as a trap by White Bull in the trees is suddenly blown in the wind: there is a haunting, tingling, magical, thrilling effect more reminiscent of the Arabian Nights than a horse opera. Heartstopping.


I bought this a while ago but somehow neglected to watch it until last night. I do like Juliette Lewis although I'm indifferent to Brad Pitt. After this viewing I have to admit he's a perfectly fine actor - his character was entirely believable, and I didn't think 'Brad Pitt' at all.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for David Duchovny. I'm an X-Files fan and I had to look twice to confirm the date of this movie, as I'd thought it was made a few years later. I like Duchovny but found his character a little two-dimensional here, except where he's doing voice-overs. That part was strong, seemed in character, good intonation, etc. Otherwise I kept thinking 'Agent Mulder', which is a pity.

Michelle Forbes was a treat. Why haven't I noticed her before? (I'll be looking up to see what other roles she's done and seeing those asap) I am slightly concerned about stereotyping re Lewis, this film, and 'Natural Born Killers' (a firm favourite). Interesting though to see a contrast of characters - in NBK she's a willing accomplice, whereas here she abhors the violence and tries very hard not to acknowledge Early's dark side until it's thrust in her face.

I enjoyed this film almost unreservedly. Apart from Duchovny's character not seeming fully-formed (and perhaps being 'washed out' somewhat by Pitt's), it was perfect. I was also pleased with the ending - glad that the innocent heroes did not die, yet they had to suffer first. It was realistic, tense, disturbing.

If you like NBK you may well like this movie, and vice-versa.


This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.

But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.

I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.


Wow! In my opinion, THE NET is an excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller that will leave you feeling good all over. When I first saw it, I was feeling good all over for days. When Angela (Sandra Bullock) went to Mexico, I thought to myself, 'That is a really nice place to vacation.' From the moment Jack (Jermey Northam) and Ruth (Wendy Gazelle) began chasing her, I thought to myself, 'Don't let anything bad happen to her! Please!' I also took quite a few deep breaths to prevent myself from screaming any more than I already had. On the bright side, if you ask me, the house was very luxurious and spacious. In conclusion, I give this excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller four stars.


When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's 'Scream'. Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as 'hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies' of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of 'hip parody' neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video 'Cut'.

Like most of the other 'new' slasher flicks, 'Cut' relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film 'Hot Blooded', to make its commentary on the genre. 'Hot Blooded' never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, 'Scarman' returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the 'new' director is revealed to be the daughter of 'Hot Blooded''s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on 'Hot Blooded'), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. 'Cut''s climax has no big 'who dunnit' unmasking of the killer like in the 'Scream' films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the 'Urban Legend' films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a 'this way we can write a sequel if it sells well' ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this 'quality' is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.


John Huston finished his remarkable career with one of the most perfect and sensitive movies I've ever seen. For his farewell he decided to adapt James Joyce's beautiful short story, 'The Dead', and made not only one of the most faithful literature-to-film adaptations yet, he also crafted a movie that more than 20 years later still surpasses a lot of contemporary cinema.

When I watched this movie a few years ago, as a student at University, I gazed in awe at the screen, marvelling at every aspect of the movie: acting, screen writing, direction, costumes, settings, music, cinematography. Thinking about it now, I still can't of anything I'd criticise it for. Huston just knew how to tell a good story.

A good deal of credit should also go to Tony Huston. He knew better than to meddle with a text that is not only perfection itself but already visual enough for cinema. Father and son let the story breathe and relish in the long, fascinating conversations between characters, and in the meaningful silences.

Donal McCann also deserves credit for the his performance as Gabriel Conroy. I had never seen him in movies before, nor have I seen him afterwards, but he gave one of the most moving performances I've ever seen.

All in all, The Dead is a fine cinematic experience, from a legendary director who never stopped being excellent.


A nice and pleasant movie full of meditteranean sceneries (Cephallonia is a very beautiful greek island) that keeps many of the novel's characteristics. I think that greek sceneries add something special and magical to a movie. One thing i didn't like at all though, is that the main characters, like 'Mandras' and Pelagia's father weren't greek actors but foreigners. I mean the actors tried to express the greek way of living, but to me they didn't succeed and it was quite clear. Even their pronunciation when they were trying to use greek words was terrible and that was bad for the film's plot. Irene Papas was really great in her role, a typical example of a mother, living in a island during the 40's, who has lost her husband and tries to live a child alone. John Hurt, Pelagia's father, also acted great. He reminded me a greek in many of his reactions.


This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes 'The Attack of the Monolith Monsters.' This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer.


You spend most of this two-hour film wondering 'what's the story regarding the lead character?'

Will Smith, as a low-key 'Ben Thomas' will keep you guessing. The last 20-25 minutes is when you find out, and it's a shocker....but you knew something dramatic was going to be revealed. Until then, Smith, plays it mysterious, almost stalking people. You know he has a good reason for doing it, but it's never really explained, once again, to keep us guessing until the end.

All of it, including a on again/off again but touching romance with Rosario Dawkins ('Emily Posa') might make some viewers frustrated or wanting to quit this film.....but don't because the final long segment puts all the pieces of this puzzle together.

This is a two-hour film and not the typical action-packed macho Will Smith film. In fact, the most shocking aspect might be seeing the drawn, sad face of Smith throughout this story. It almost doesn't even look like him in a number of shots. He looks like he's lost weight and is sick. Smith does a great job portraying a man carrying around a lot of sadness.

Like a good movie will often do, this film will leave you thinking long after the ending credits.


'I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!' The small town sheriff laments.

'This happens a lot in Chicago?' His deputy asks.

Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of 'Big Bean, IL'. Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.

The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie.


I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !


'ASTONISHING' Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...

You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an 'underground cult director'. Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.

Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10


Sad story of a downed B-17 pilot. Brady is shot down over occupied territory. The local ranchers extended him kindness and protection at the cost of their own lives. I had never heard of this movie and it snagged me for two hours. After the film is over, I'm glad I took the time. It's an entire story told to explain the look on Brady's face at the start of the film.


If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, 'My kid!', I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema.


Okay... for the most part, and all its cheesiness, this movie was actually pretty good for an MST3K flick... but then they decided to ruin what little goodness it had about fifteen minutes before the ending. *SPOILER ALERT* The film is very basic... a rich mama's boy named Danny meets a bum named Bix, and the two of them travel to a small town, where Bix meets a pretty girl named Carrie (who is so very.) Now, this film's basic premise seemed promising enough. All they needed to do was follow the simple chemistry of any romance movie... Carrie loves Bix... Bix loves Carrie... a creepy guy in town lusts for Carrie... Now, I know what you're thinking... Bix fights the creep and ultimately decides to settle down with Carrie, and Danny returns home, and they all live happily ever after... right? WRONG!! Because Carrie gets murdered by the town creep, because Bix is too gay to commit. (There are so many homosexual undertones between Danny and Bix.) And then, the whole town decides to lynch Bix, even though the town creep would've easily been the prime suspect. Then, the town creep confesses to killing Carrie without much hesitation... (must've felt bad, the poor dope.) Then, Danny brings Bix home with him... that's the film's 'happily ever after.' Sad, huh? All I can say is, thank God for Joel and the Bots. Because they turned this horse hockey into one of my favorite MST3K episodes.


Or if you've seen the 'Evil Dead' trilogy and/or 'Bubba Ho-Tep', then you should know that his movies are total farces. With 'Man with the Screaming Brain', he goes all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin in 'All of Me'.

Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from 'Evil Dead' director Sam Raimi's brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper.

So just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit disappointed. I liked it, anyway.


This movie is a mess, but at least it's not pretentious. The box art for the video markets it as a 'fun throwback' to 1950s giant bug movies. In reality, it's a transparent bargain basement ripoff of 'Aliens'.

The producers clearly wanted to make an 'ALIEN' picture, but they mustn't have had much money. In fact, it doesn't look like they had ANY money, really. I hope everyone got paid who worked on this thing.

The basic plot is retained--group of people isolated with murderous insectoid creature--and an earthbound location is inserted for budgetary reasons, I presume. Instead of setting the film in space, where no one can hear you scream, they set the film in a hospital, where everyone can see your budget laid bare. The amusing thing about 'Blue Monkey' (and there is only one thing amusing about it) is, the filmmakers didn't abandon the 'ALIEN' aesthetics. Even though we're in a hospital, we still have an improbably cavernous annex where science fiction experiments are being conducted, in this case the venerable 'growth hormone' plot device. The annex also doubles as a boiler room (or something), so we can have an explanation for the monster seeking out the warmth. The boiler room is so large that it is laced with multi-leveled steel catwalks, perfect for allowing slime to drip down between the slats.

The idea is that a man working in a greenhouse is attacked by a drooping flower from a rare imported plant that grows in an exotic location. He touches it and says 'Ow', so we know he's been hurt. The cut on his finger causes him to lapse into unconsciousness in a matter of minutes, and at the hospital he gives birth to a white worm through his mouth (I guess in an 'ALIEN' picture this would be called the 'mouthburster'?). The worm is isolated, but some naughty little kids (leukemia patients) sneak up on it and 'accidentally' give it some experimental growth hormone. You know everyone's in trouble when some fornicating hospital staff workers are attacked by a camera on a crane, and pretty soon a maintenance man finds some obligatory cocoons, right before he's grabbed by a pair of semi-convincing insectoid arms. The rest of the movie is dominated by the semi-offscreen monster, semi-obscured by the semi-darkness.

Which brings us back to 'ALIEN'. How, you ask, can a movie set in a hospital incorporate all those flashing strobe lights that are always in the 'ALIEN' movies? No problem...a power outage (or something) causes the electrical system to go awry, which apparently causes strobe lights to blossom in every room of the hospital and flicker constantly throughout the movie. This doubles as a convenient cloak for the less-than-special effects (although the bugs are pretty neat looking, they don't move too well, and the baby bug looks charmingly like a Cootie toy).

OK, so what 'ALIEN' bases haven't we covered...OH, water dripping down the walls! Check...we'll divide the massive hospital into two parts, then send some of the characters through the damp, drippy basement to get to the other side. Problem solved, we now have the opportunity for numerous 'foreboding tunnel' shots. And don't forget the fog...well, you never really need an excuse for this in horror movies, do you? OK, maybe inside of a hospital you do, so we'll create smoke by having lots of things spark & burn.

I haven't said anything about the negligible acting, not that the actors are given any kind of script to follow. I take it 'Blue Monkey' was supposed to be lighthearted and fun, and if so then it is a nice try, but the pieces don't come together and the movie ends up being a real drag. See a film called 'Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn' if you want to see a film of this type that gets it right, with even less money and even more marginal acting talent. This one falls flat on its ALIEN.


Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated 'Movie of the Week' quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.

Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than 'us' (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of 'oddness' about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.

It's difficult to hear the phrase 'A dingo took my baby!' without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.

Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.

Haunting questions, with or without the film.


This belabored and sloppy spy melodrama featuring two buffoonish (one idealistic, one drug addled) California kids dealing secrets to the KGB never seems to get enough steam up to sustain any tension and suspense before it dies a very slow death over two hours later. John Schlesinger's finished product gives the impression that he was asleep in his director's chair most of the time as the film lags and the actors sleep walk, save for the highly annoying over the top performance of Sean Penn.

Childhood altar boys and friends Chris (Tim Hutton) and Daulton (Penn) devise a plan to sell secrets to the KGB when Chris lands a job that allows him access to top secret government materials. Disillusioned by what he sees as US meddling in foreign affairs the idealistic Chris and the drug hungry Daulton make contact with the Russians and begin to funnel them classified materials. When Chris decides he wants out things begin to unravel at a lackadaisical pace.

The eighties were not kind to distinguished director John Schlesinger. In the 60s and 70s he had a series of critically acclaimed films in both England and America but then came Honky Tonk Freeway in 1981 and it marked the beginning of the end. The Falcon and the Snowman more or less put a lid on it. Lacking the suspense of Marathon Man and the quality performances (Hoffman Voight, Christie, Jackson, Finch, Olivier) he had coaxed from leads in the past Falcon goes in circles most of the way.

Sean Penn chews scenery from start to finish in such an obnoxious fashion you find yourself encouraging his torturers to do more to him. Tim Hutton is governed by his limited acting chops and most of his scenes show a need for more rehearsal time. Lori Singer as Hutton's girlfriend plays it mute most of the way with Schlesinger content to film her vapid expressions. When she does emote you understand why. Only David Suchet as the KGB handler with a piercing eyed introspective presence and restraint acquits himself well.


The whole movie seemed to suffer from poor editing - every scene seemed to take forever to unfold and when they did, I felt like I had waited a long time for very little to happen. I guess I missed the whole point of the movie - either that or there wasn't one.


Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the 'claustrophobic' shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas.


You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.

The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.

Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. 'Solarbabies' and 'Blood of Champions' are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.

Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.

Just bad.


The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year.


I can't believe I wasted my time with this movie. I couldn't even call it a movie. It was so bad with nothing to recommend it.

I like low budget movies and weird flicks but this one had me bored to death. Badly made and bad acting ruined it from being curious. You have to wonder what these people were thinking when they spent money to produce this movie. I wonder what I was thinking watching it to the end. I recommend this movie to no one. How did they release this? Was there an audience who likes this kind of movie? There must be because you can find this at almost any video store. But why?

Deserves to be forgotten.

If you like bad movies then this is for you.


I own Ralph Bakshis forgotten masterpiece Fire & Ice on an old OOP rental videotape.

 Well for one thing, this is better than any other Conan-esque film you'll ever see. Sure, it's cheesy, but who cares? It stood the test of time, and the only way it started to look cheesy is in comparisons to modern fantasy epics like LOTR:FOTR (though I love that film.)

 The plot goes like this: After a battle between Fire & Ice, a kings daughter is kidnapped by Jarols (Ice) subhuman creatures, while a sole survivor of a victimized village rescues her.

 Yeah it doesn't sound as a original as Nurse Betty, but that's not the point. It is really to bring to life an interesting idea of a world of two enemies: Fire & Ice. And it succeeds.

 As for the action scenes: superb. They are well handled, have terrific suspence, and have plenty of loud noises. Just check out the climatic battle, now THAT'S an ending!

 The acting and dialogue: competent. Really. They aren't gonna be nominated for an Oscar, but they are OK and don't get on your nerves.

 The animation is quite good. Shot on 3D and rotoscoped (I THINK), it looks pretty good. A lot of the backgrounds look really detailed and well drawn, and although the character designs feel a little 1-dimentional, they are OK.

 Overall, this is a fine neglected little gem and will entertain you more than any of the superfical 'entertainment'. 10/10


Every high praise word fell way short before the height of this movie. This movie is the true example of how a psychological horror movie should be.

The plot seems to be a bit confusing at first viewing but it will definitely explain a bit about what's going on and you really want to view it for the second time. But after second viewing you will start to join the pieces together and then you will know how amazing a movie can be.

A word of advice for slasher flick fans stay away from this movie. This is not your dumb ass teenage slasher movie, in which you just switch off your brain and sit in front of the screen just to see big b**bs and lots of blood.

If you want to heighten the psychological horror factor of this movie then watch it all alone with a great home theater system that supports Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1ch, without any of your ill mannered friends that crack jokes on a really tense situation. And don't forget to switch the light off.

My points on different aspects:-

Direction = 9/10 Acting = 8/10 Atmosphere = 10/10 Sound Effect = 9/10

Total = 9/10


I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.

Considering how many 'Bad News Bears' films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.

A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year!

Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.

Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. 'Coach Of The Year' should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10


I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........


Superb film with no actual spoken dialogue which enhances the level of suspense. The whole approach gives a completely different twist to a war film.

Well worth watching again if only it could be found. I saw it perhaps 20 or so years ago. - Fantastic!


I really miss the production of good old fashion Spooky films. If Ismail Merchant and James Ivory had been given the task of producing such a film it may have been this one, save for the lack of an internationally known, top drawer cast. This is one of those films that you watch alone on a dark evening with a pizza and some popcorn, and you don't even bother doing the dishes until morning because you just want to hide under the covers. Bravo to Director Herbert Wise, Writers Susan Hill and Nigel Kneale, top Production design by Jon Bunker, Art Direction by John Ralph and an excellent cast for making me shudder and feel so isolated even though I'm living in one of the most populated cities in the world in the beginning of the 21st Century. I gave it a '9' out of '10' because with the production and budget constraints of television, they really pulled of a great show.


When you have waited years to see a film that you have heard on the grape vine about obviously your expectations are high right? f**k yeah!But when this baby dropped through my door little did i know what f***ed up visuals would grace my TV and warp my fragile mind. First off Karim Hussein is a film fan like all of us growing up on a diet of Argento/Fulci/lynch etc.....and it shows in this film, but in a good way. Although i didn't really know what the hell was going on on my first watch of this gem i was just amazed by the visuals,the lighting and of course the performances from everyone who was involved Karim must have truly believed that he was going to push the boundaries in film-making(which trust me he does)and that he was going to have a hard job convincing the actors to do the same........

So what can i tell you about 'subconscious cruelty'?Well without spoiling it....its a deep insight into the human psyche with images of violent and sexual madness which toils into madness.....a truly unforgettable experience.......

keep you eye on Karim Hussein he can only go onto better things.....

I viewed the full uncut print of subconscious cruelty on a double disc DVD from Infliction films which is loaded with extras.....please note there is a censored hong Kong release out there avoid this version.


The net is an excellent movie! It's about Angela Bennett(in a great performance of Sandra Bullock) who is a computer expert who works for the Cathedral Company, cleaning virus and testing games for the clients. Angela is a typical nerd who doesn't have friends outside of the cyberspace,almost doesn't take vacations and go out, and stays almost all the time connected. One day her friend Dale Hessman(Ray McKinnon) asks her to help him,sending Angela a disk with a strange program that has many confidential informations. At the same night, when Dale was going to meet her, he is suddenly killed in a plane crash.Going to Mexico in her vacation,Angela meets a beautiful guy called Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam)who shows to be a cold blood killer bastard and one of the guys behind all the secret of the Diskette.

Her life then turns into a nightmare: All her records are erased and she is given the new identity of Ruth Marx, a woman with serious problems with the police.

This movie is great because it shows how we, humans,depend a lot of the computers and machines(sometimes more that we should) and how vulnerable we are if someday ,someone decides to control and change our personal records,without letting us the chance to prove the error.


I loathed this film. The original Phantasm had such wonderful ambiance and mystery. Like many 70s horror flicks, it looked and felt like some creepy, unfinished documentary. Phantasm II, from the late 80s, pumped up the action, but maintained this nice attention to mood. Sadly, Phantasm III is just awful. It tediously explains all of the weird happenings in the previous films, which diminishes rather than expands their power. It shamelessly degrades imagery from the first Phantasm like a cheap reenactment of the original. There are so many flying spheres in this movie that they seem more like household pests than menacing death orbs. Hundreds hang from the ceiling like Christmas balls swaying in the draft. Didn't anyone-- the prop master, the DP, the editor, the director-- notice or care that they looked so crummy? Even worse, Phantasm III presents one corny, unfunny joke after another. How different from the intensity of the first film. The original Phantasm used humor to relieve its relentless focus on death. Phantasm III uses death to set up countless cheap jokes about Reggie's horniness: several refer to the film's 'flying balls' ha-ha, oh, I get it, balls. Maybe the crew got a kick out of these jokes, but they are on us.


'The Student of Prague' is an early feature-length horror drama or, rather, it is an 'autorenfilm' (i.e. an author's film). This film is a member of a movement of many movements that tried to lend respectability to cinéma, or just make a profit, by adapting literature or theatre onto the screen. Fortunately, the story of this book with moving pictures is good. Using Alfred de Musset's poem and a story by Edgar Allen Poe, it centres on the doppelgänger theme.

Unfortunately, the most cinematic this film gets is the double exposure effects to make Paul Wegener appear twice within scenes. Guido Seeber was a special effects wizard for his day, but he's not very good at positioning the camera or moving it. Film scholar Leon Hunt (printed in 'Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative'), however, has made an interesting analysis on this film using framing to amplify the doubles theme: characters being split by left/right, near/far and frontal/diagonal framing of characters and shots. Regardless, the film mostly consists of extended long shots from a fixed position, which is noticeably primitive. Worse is the lack of editing; there's very little scene dissection and scenes linger. None of this is unusual for 1913, but there were more advanced films in this respect around the same time, including the better parts of 'Atlantis' (August Blom, 1913), 'Twilight of a Woman's Soul' (Yevgeni Bauer, 1913) and the short films of D.W. Griffith.

An expanded universal film vocabulary by 1926 would allow for a vastly superior remake. Furthermore, the remake has a reason for the Lyduschka character, other than being an occasional troublemaker and spectator surrogate. Here, the obtrusively acted gypsy lurks around, seemingly, with a cloak of invisibility. I know their world is silent to me, but I assume, with their lips moving and such, that their world would not be silent to them, so how can Lyduschka leer over others' shoulders and not be noticed?

Nevertheless, this is one of the most interesting early films conceptually. Wegener, who seems to have been the primary mind behind this film, in addition to playing the lead, would later play the title role and co-direct 'The Golem' in 1920--helping to further inaugurate the supernatural thread in German silent cinéma.

(Note: The first version I viewed was about an hour long (surely not quite complete) and was in poor condition, with faces bleached at times and such. I'm not sure who was the distributor. I've also since seen the Alpha DVD, which, at 41 minutes, is missing footage present in the aforementioned print and also has fewer and very different title cards, but is visually not as bad. The repetitive score is best muted, though.)


As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting).

Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.

Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.

The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.


Hey now, I can't claim to have seen all of the films of Jesse (Jesus) Franco, and there sure seem to be a lot of them, but this is one of the better (and weirder) of the lot that I have seen. I'd say most likely he was in his prime back in the late sixties/early seventies and anything lately has been a bit TOO strange for me, and it takes a lot for me to declare that. Anyway, this is like one big bad dream where parts of it seem to come true at various points. This woman is an actress or something, performs in some theater in Berlin where acts of 'fake' torture are performed for an appreciative audience (?!) and she seems to have this problem with dreaming. The catch to what's real and what's not in this movie is apparently the real stuff is in sharp focus and the dream stuff isn't. She seems to exist in a state of deja vu. I won't say this makes a whole lot of sense but it is pretty wild and weird and entertaining. Shots of Berlin make it seem like a lonely and creepy place, so that adds to the atmosphere. The ending is extremely abrupt though, the film just ends and the tape went black, I guess no need to let you know it was over at that point. My copy was from the Anchor Bay Euro-Trash collection, and I say, give me more Euro-Trash, I can't get enough of that crap. But it's GOOD crap.


After a very disappointing Part 3, I kinda wondered if I should even bother with The Next Karate Kid, while I could see why this saga wouldn't continue, I still enjoyed The Next Karate Kid most out of the second and the third Karate Kid movies. While there are some very unrealistic moments and situations, it was very enjoyable and the story is a catchy and warm one.

Hilary Swank, has this girl come far or what? She plays a rebel girl who has lost her parents to a car accident and when Miaugi sort of 'babysits' her per say, he notices that she has karate skills. He offers her more lessons if she becomes more serious in life. Now of course there is the boy that likes her and the mean bullies that are pretty similar to the first Karate Kid, but I would recommend this one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

7/10


This is one of my most favorite movies of all time. Pretty pathetic you say? Well, yeah it is. But Chris is incredibly, incredibly funny. His innocent brilliance comes out in this film more than in any of his other films. Look at both motel scenes, when Spade gets caught with his zipper down, and the other: 'JUST GO AWAY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!'


This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, 'It's just fiction, who cares' would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun.

In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as 'understatement.' In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, 'That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!' about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed.

If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.


Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.

I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that???

Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.

Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself.


I've got to say that I'm not a massive fan of Troma films. Granted, I've only seen three of them (or four including this one), but two (Blood Sucking Freaks and Mothers' Day) are widely reputed to be the best, which leads me to believe that all the others aren't worth seeing. That would certainly seem to be the case with Graduation Day, which is a Troma take on the over-popular eighties slasher. While the film is never particularly bad (given the type of film), it's never particularly good either; and by the end, all I could think about was 'why did I bother watching this?'. Anyway, the plot sees some girl die on a race track, and shortly thereafter; more people start dying. Naturally, there are a few possible suspects; but it's hard to really care about anything that happens. Of course, in slasher terms; it's the gore that is most important, and given Troma's track record where the red stuff is concerned, I was expecting buckets of it. There are some decent kill scenes, and some of them are gory; but it's never very shocking, which really just makes this another dreary slasher based on a celebratory event on the American calendar. It's worth noting that there's a small role in this film for sleaze queen Linnea Quigley, but the rest of the cast aren't worth mentioning. The direction, plot and its execution are all very mundane; and I will say that unless you're a big Troma fan or someone that wants to track down every slasher ever made; don't bother with this film.


I have never seen a Barbara Steele movie that I haven't liked, and have always been a sucker for a good haunted-house story (especially for such wonderful pictures as 'The Legend of Hell House' and the original versions of 'The Haunting' and 'House on Haunted Hill'), so I had a feeling that 'Castle of Blood' would be right up my alley. And boy, was it ever! This French-Italian coproduction, while perhaps not the classic that Steele's first horror film, 'Black Sunday,' remains to this day, is nevertheless an extremely atmospheric, chilling entry in the spook genre. Filmed in black and white, it manages to convey a genuinely creepy miasma. The film concerns a journalist who bets one Lord Blackwood and an author named Edgar Allen Poe that he can spend the night in Blackwood's castle on the night of All Saints Day, when the spirits of those killed in the castle reenact their fate. The viewer gets to see these deaths, and they ARE pretty horrible, for the most part. The film does indeed send shivers up the viewer's spine, and in the uncut DVD that I just watched--thanks to the fine folks at Synapse--even features a surprising topless scene and some mild lesbianism! And Barbara is wonderful in this movie; her otherworldly beauty is put to good advantage playing a sympathetic spectre. Her mere presence turns a creepy ghost story into something truly memorable. Not for nothing has she been called 'The Queen of Horror.'


Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's 'Fata Morgana' is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.

The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.

This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.

'Fata Morgana' does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.

Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, 'Fata Morgana' will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: 'Fata Morgana' is ... different.


I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.

Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...

Awful film.

2/10