This cool Marvel superhero game pays proper tribute by staying true to the comics. Of all the Marvel superhero games that have been so lame with weak graphics and gameplay, Spiderman improves in both departments. It also features the voice of Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman comics.

As you'd expect Spiderman does whatever a spider can. He does more than spin webs. In fact, he uses them as weapons and shields. When he's not using web in combat, he punches and kicks as well. Spidey has his hands full as he battles Venom, Rhino, Mysterio, Scorpion, and Dr. Octopus to name a few. Look for Captain America in a cameo.

Most of the levels are challenging, but some of them require patience to beat. The only complaint about this game is that it's so short and can be completed in less than three hours. If you're a real Marvel superhero fan, this game is for you but don't expect long gameplay. Better luck in 'Spiderman 2.' My evaluation: 9 out of 10.


Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia 'goodness' in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.

A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a 'black hole' as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.

Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.

S10 reviews: 1/5 or 3/10


I understand what this movie was trying to portray. How the old are often ignored and treated like a bother, which means they end up feeling unappreciated and like their lives are empty.

I do not have a problem with this message, but I just feel that it could have been put across in a way that is not so painful to watch. I enjoy a good art movie but when a movie becomes too self-consciously arty (as in this case) the result is often frustrating. Including shots of a person packing a suitcase slowly that take 5 minutes try to make a point but just end up annoying the audience.

The female characters are very weak and you end up wanting to just tell them to pull it together. This is a movie you feel you should enjoy or rate highly and certainly has its' merits but I was just too frustrated watching it to ever recommend it to someone else. It might have a deeper message than other Roger Michell movies (for example: 'Notting Hill') but at least that was a movie you could enjoy watching.


This animated movie is a masterpiece! The narration, music, animation, and storyline where all remarkable. My girlfriend and I saw it again for a second time and we got more insight from it. We invited a couple friends to see Spirit with us and they really enjoyed it a lot. When I asked them to come along to see it, they thought it was a movie about horses, but afterwards they realized it was more than that. I liked Esperanza, Spirit, Rain, and Lil' Creek, who reminds me of Nathan Chasing Horse who is Smiles A Lot in Dances With Wolves. Spirit has deep symbolic meanings and metaphors that I found to be empowering and inspirational.

I saw Spirit for a third time and I want to go see it again. I enjoyed 'Spirit' tremendously because its portrayal of American Indians is realistic, dignified, and non-stereotypical unlike the movie 'The Road to El Dorado', which was a total farce because it portrayed American Indians in a disrespectful and stereotypical way. But Dreamworks has redeemed themselves by making Spirit a great movie that I found to be acceptable! I hope they continue to make more animated movies like Spirit, and I would like to see sequels or spinoffs to Spirit if its done respectfully and without stereotyping American Indians.

I highly recommend this to others who have an open mind to go and pay to see Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.


Now don't get me wrong, I love seeing half naked chicks wiggling around. It's part of the fun of a Moroccan restaurant: ogling the belly dancers. But it doesn't make much of a plot.

My first major problem is the music. I have the feeling that when Ann Rice wrote 'The Vampire Lestat', the Cure was more the style of the music he would have liked (though I could be wrong). I know relating to current 'goth' music might have seemed like a good idea, but they did a horrific job incorporating it. Lestat was an actor with presumably a pretty good singing voice. That they chose Jonathan Davis to be his stage voice is heartbreaking.

Second, and someone else said it, mashing two very intricate books into one crappy movie is a bad idea. 'Lestat' could have been a movie in it's own right, and a damn good one if done right. I honestly don't think 'Queen of the Damned' lends itself to a movie very well. Though I would love to see a movie that incorporates a creation story, there's too much, how to word this, 'inaction' in the book for it to be a very interesting movie. And the retelling they did soiled it pretty badly. Now mind you, it's been a long time since I've read it, I always thought 'Lestat', 'Tale of the Body Thief' and 'Memnoch the Devil' were much more action packed and would have made better movies.

I know a lot of people (hey, myself included) who like a lot of cheesy vampire crap that thought this was absolutely the worst of the genre to be a major motion picture. I tend to agree with them there. Aaliyah had a nice body though.


this is one of the stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)


This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's 'House of Frankenstein', being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing 'Moonlight Sonata' on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from 'The Ghost of Frankenstein' (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).


This movie was pretty bad. Sci-fi is usually my favorite channel so I watch all the original movies that play on it. I really don't know if this movie can be called original. Starting a zoo/theme park on a remote island sounds pretty familiar. What was it, oh yeah, Jurassic Park. But this has Sabertooth tigers instead.

The movie starts out with a few stereotypical college kids on an island doing some kind of treasure hunt. One of them ends up dieing a rather gruesome death with some of the worst special effects I've seen. The blood looked a lot like ketchup. Also at the beginning there is a scientist who wants to make as many saber tooth tigers as possible for people to enjoy. 3 of them have already escaped and are going around eating the tourists, or the people invited to the island to see the tigers first hand. Again, sound like Jurassic Park. Probably the coolest thing was the 1000lb saber tooth who crawled around on his front legs killing the mad scientist with a tooth statue of sorts that somehow shrinks and goes through the guys neck. Funniest death I've seen on TV.

The acting is extremely cheesy, the special effects are horrible. The CG tigers could almost pass for clay models, and even some of the sounds were off. For instance, when one of the college students is trying to escape, he uses an ax to break down a door, the ax goes into the door and about 2 seconds later you hear the sound. This movie was pretty bad. The cheesy deaths were quite funny though.


When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like 'Alice' and 'Little Otik,' or short gems such as 'Down to the Cellar' and 'Jabberwocky.' All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.

On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.

'Lunacy,' unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.

If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film 'Et Cetera' brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love 'Lunacy.' If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.


The whole Biker Movie genre has to be made up of the worst films ever made. This one delivers a lot of fighting, generous amounts of blood, bikers fighting Indians, and a shanty town that gets blown up and torn down one shack at a time. The acting is beyond terrible. What ever happened to Robert Walker, Jr.? At one point he was in some major studio productions, and then he just faded away. This movie really blows, but if you have not seen a Biker movie in a long time, it is a good one to watch. At the end of the movie, you should feel a bit trashy for having watched it!


I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read 'Scarlett' before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that 'Frankly dear, I don't give a damn' ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.


Repetitive music, annoying narration, terrible cinematography effects. Half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight.

One of the best scenes was in the 'deleted scenes' section, the one where she's in the principle's office with her mom. I don't understand why they'd cut that. The movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and Domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie.

Ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of MTV, and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. Speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. It's like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they didn't want to throw away.

Another movie with Jerry Springer in it? That should've told me not to watch it from the preview.

A popular movie for the 'in' crowd.


This movie, while seemingly based off of a movie of the same title in 1951 released by MGM and starring Janet Leigh, is still a great film. Danny Glover in one of his best performances brings George Knox, a down on his luck baseball manager with a short temper, to life. As for this movie being 'stacked', how about adding Christopher Lloyd (his stage experience works and shows through in his performances on screen, a wonderful actor), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun), Brenda Fricker (a charming and well seasoned Irish actress), Tony Danza (yes even he is good in this film), Matthew McConaughey (he stole the show in Dazed and Confused, and his role may not be as pivotal in this film, but he got exposure), Adrien Brody (what I said about Matthew McConaughey goes the same for Adrien, except the Dazed and Confused part), some great character actors like Taylor Negron (David), Tony Longo (Messmer), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass) and a seasoned veteran in one of his final performances, Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy, the owner of the California Angels), and the rest of the cast does a great job, plus a great storyline that is uplifting to pretty much anyone, I don't care what recesses of depression you're in. I loved this film as a kid, and it brings back memories when I watch it today. I need this on DVD. I recommend it to any parent who's looking for something their kids have not seen, and everybody else, for that matter.


Track Listing: 1. Spiderbait - Outta My Head 2. Lash - Take Me Away 3.Lavaland - Everwonder 4. Machine Gun Fellatio - The Girl Of My Dreams(Is Giving Me Nightmares) 5. Butterfly 9 - Growing Pains 6. Grace -Good Thing 7. Katchafire - Giddy Up 8. James - Lick A Lounge 9. K-lee -1+1+1 10. The International Noise Conspiracy - Smash It Up 11. Cartman- Shock (Living With You) 12. Pollyanna - Rebound Girl 13. Filler - Machines Don't Sleep 14. Giants Of Science - Complete This Progression 15. Rocket Science - Hyperspace 16. The Cruel Sea - Three Legged Dog 17. Lazaro's Dog - Home Entertainment System 18. Drag - Secret Design 19. Grinspoon - Chemical Heart (Acoustic Mix) 20. Subware - Come On (Jp Mix)

Loved this movie, sure it wasn't Hollywood material (some people complained about the script/acting) but thats the beauty in Australian movies.


Reign Over Me (titled after the who song) is a movie that is sure to bring a tear to almost everyone's eye. It was a moving story of a guy (sandler) that lost his family in the 9-11 world trade center attacks. Years later, he runs into an old college roommate (cheadle) that he doesn't even recognize due to the post-dramatic stress ensued by the loss of his family. The two rekindle their old friendship and Cheadle's character, Johnson, realizes that he must get Sandler's character, Fineman, some help before it's too late.

This was the first movie that has made me cry in a long time. It's completely worth watching and after seeing it, I'm positive the viewer will appreciate his or her family much more.


This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.

If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.


This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like 'freeing' people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.


Like most other reviewers I have first seen this movie (on TV, never on the big screen), when I was a teenager. My Dad has always regarded this film highly and recommended it to me then, and I must say he was not only right, but this movie has stayed with me forever in the more than 2 decades since I saw it first time. I have seen it two or three more times since then (just a few days ago I gave it another watch) and it has not lost anything of its impact with time. It still a great and well worth to be seen movie! Manr regard Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY as one of the first and best later western, which had a realistic look at life in the old west, but the hardly known LAST HUNT is definitely the better movie and was even half a dozen years earlier. Actually it was probably 3 decades ahead of its time, or maybe it still is ...

Although thinking hard and having certainly seen 100s of western (I like this genre) I can not remember any western as bleak and depressive as this one. Two men bound together, partly by hate, partly by not seeming to have other choices, surrounded by beautiful Ms. Padget, a crippled old man and a young Inian, leading the life of buffalo-killers until fate reaches out for one of them.

Nobody who has ever seen this movie will be able to forget its ending and the last frames of this gem. When the camera moves on and away from Mr. Taylor a white buffalo skin comes into sight (on a tree)and echos from the past, when all the hatred began, are present again. Mr. Taylor has got his buffalo, but in the end the buffalo got him.

Aside from the top performances of everybody involved, the intelligent script and the great dialogue, it should also be mentioned, that THE LAST HUNT is superbly photograped, I have seldomely seen a western that well shot (aside from the ones directed by Anthony Mann, which are also all superbly photographed), that all the locations are cleverly chosen and that even the soundtrack fits the picture very well.

And director BROOKS is really a superb storyteller. Master craftsmanship!He has made quite a couple of really great movies and was successful in nearly every imaginable genre, but even in an as prolific career as this one, THE LAST HUNT still shines as one of his best, if not his best.

Definitely would deserve a higher rating, compared to the 7-something RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY enjoys.


If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10.


I watched this movie out of a lack of anything else on at the time. Quickly the movie grabbed me with the depth of the characters and subtle plot. I was quite surprised to see that the rating given by my satellite provider did not show any stars.

I will not give any spoilers to the plot-line or outcome but most of the characters had at least some redeeming value. Until the very last minute I did not know how it would turn out. Frequently, you can pick-up the formula and predict a story direction. I could not do that with this film.

I would recommend this as one of the finer films of this genre.


Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of 'civilized warfare', it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with 'war', in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a 'something' whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.


The first thing I wanted to do after watching this film was watch it again (because I'd missed lots with all the laughing I did). I'm European and I've studied abroad and I've as good as lived with Spanish, french, Italian and German people. The film was full of stereotypes, which, more often than not, p*** people off, and reading some of the other reviews I see that it did p*** people off. But, this film gets the stereotypes so right I cannot fault it. Except for maybe the way the french guy became a drunken party animal. The English guy was the perfect 'geezer' stereotype. Drunk, annoying, insulting but shines through in the end. As well as the stereotypes the film also got the emotional aspect of studying abroad correct. At first he's shy, doesn't know anybody, misses home, doesn't know his way around. As time progresses it becomes his home and when the time comes to leave, it is extremely difficult. A feeling people can only understand if they've experienced it. I highly recommend this film.


A good film, and one I'll watch a number of times. Rich (the previous commenter)is right: there is much more going on here than is clear from the title boards, and I have to wonder how much has suffered in translation. Were there more in the original? Or was a native-language audience expected to lip-read more? Or -- since the screenplay was written by the author of the novel on which this was based -- was this a currently popular story with which the audience was already very familiar? In short, very worth a look, but it probably requires more work from contemporary viewers than the original 1913 audience had to put into it.

The Alpha Video release touts the new organ score, but the music is not matched to the story progression in any way. Sure, it starts promisingly, but degenerates into a repetitive, Phillip-Glass-like monotony that reflects nothing of the action on the screen. After listening for a while, I turned off the sound and simply watched: much better!


Yes, you can look at Babette's Feast as some sort of slap at Puritanical Christianity, but it is much more than that. The surface story of how a gifted Parisian cook flees Paris after one of its revolutions by the middle classes and finds herself cast ashore in Jutland in the north of Denmark is simply the grease that allows the deeper tale to develop.

Babette is an artist, one of the small army of people who are driven from pillar to post over the centuries by fatuous politicians, vane, greedy and arrogant, who kill beauty for profit, something that politics always does, pace National Endowment for the Arts, which simply institutionalizes creativity for propaganda purposes.

Babette is on her last legs as she arrives in the tiny village where two virginal sisters reside seeing over their diminishing flock of devotees to their late pastor father. They live on salt cod and black bread gruel.

Babette shows these simple pious people that God is in pleasure and sensuality as well as behavioral and mental purity. She also shows them how that mental purity can lead to control freakishness, something we all know about in these days of the neo-authoritarians in government who would limit our personal freedoms because they are somehow a crime against the state, or as they would tell us, humanity.

Babette cooks up a bang-up French dinner to celebrate the 100th birthday of the late reverend. The daughters and their flock think it is the devil come amongst them and vow not to notice the food or drink.

It is at this point, in the preparing of the meal, payed for by Babette's winnings in a French lottery, that I begin to tear-up. It is a poignance brought about in comparison to the daily vulgarity and mendacity that floods our consciousness from morning to night via the media and power-mongers manoeuvring to gain advantage over all of us out here in the dark.

The simple sophistication of Babette's art spits in the face of all the pretentiousness on display in our modern society, and it hurts to watch it played out so exquisitely in this splendid film.

It is, along with Fanny och Alexander (Bergman), my favorite film ever, yet I can only watch it once in awhile because, like a rare bottle of wine served with Blinis and fresh oysters, it is something that must not be over-done.

A great, great film that should be in every movie-lover's library.


Never having seen an Oliver Stone film before, nor any films starring Eric Bogosian, I didn't know what to expect from this film. Having toyed with the idea of buying it for a while, I finally got it for free as a supplement with a Sunday newspaper and I was hugely impressed.

It tells the story of Barry Champlain, a talk radio host who can be incredibly rude towards his callers, often putting them in their place before they realise what's going on. Though this is what has made him a popular radio show host, it has also earned him numerous enemies.

The acting in this film was hugely impressive with not one dud actor in it. Eric Bogosian is brilliant as Barry Champlain, the troubled talk radio host with Alec Baldwin turning in a strong performance as Barry's boss, Dan. It also features the voice of, and cameo appearance by, Michael Wincott (my reason for wanting to see this).

The story was really well written as, despite his arrogance, you feel for Barry as more about his troubled life is revealed and you see how vulnerable he really is.

I'd recommend this film to anyone as it is captivating and, more importantly real on numerous levels, two of which being that is was inspired by the life of an actual talk radio host and the fact that you do actually get radio show hosts, and callers, like the ones featured in the film in reality.

High recommendation and 10/10.

Aye yours, Cat Squire


Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over life time. I think best is yet to come.

Fire is ok.

But still good days are yet to come.

Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her better.

Thanks and Regards.

PS: India doesn't have a director to make best use of her.


'They both believed that a hidden sentiment has unified them. This certitude is beautiful,but the incertitude is more beautiful. They believed that they had never been met.Nothing has happened between them.But those roads,those stairs,those corridors for all that time they could have been met.' Although it did not mean to be,it was a swan song.Two young people,who are neighbors and have never been met,are found in the same places,the same times,doing most of the times the same things.They finally meet in the dramatic and very brilliant end that brings them together.Meanwhile the woman has met an old man.Their relation is brotherhood-like.He told her his life.It was like the young one's but with better prospectives.The young man can do whatever the old man has not lived.He can be happy with the woman. The ending is exceptional.There is a ship wreck.The only survivors are the heros of the 'Three colors'.The man and the woman finally meet.The scene lasts a few seconds.The woman there looks like the photo she had taken for an ad in the beginning of the film;sad in a red fond.'But every start is only the continue.The book of the life is opened in the middle.'


Son In Law didn't do so hot in the box office, but that only means the masses were wrong. This movie is one of the few movies that Pauly Shore really excels in, with some of the funniest lines I've ever heard. Although the ending is sub-par, the antics of Shore carries the movie.


It took me a while to find this movie since they don't have it yet on DVD (and my VCR is not worth hooking up again). I guess all the referencing to drug use is too much for some folks. But I found a decent bootleg on Ebay and I must say that anyone who takes this movie too seriously is just retarded. It is a slap stick spoof in the vein of 'Airplane.' I must say that when I watched it on Showtime or Spotlight growing up in the 80s, I enjoyed the humor a whole lot more then, than I do now. But it's definitely worth watching just to see what they(i.e., movie makers) were able to get away with before the 'Just Say No' hypocrites unleashed their propaganda. sing...'We are all on drugs' hahaha It's a silly film and worth the $10 I paid off of Ebay to get it on DVD just don't even think about comparing it to the original - that's just plain stupid. What are you high?


I can remember reading that Darwin had a pivotal experience in the Galapagos islands, seeing the vast range of animal life there, and intern, penned his theory of evolution. Not according to this movie-it was inspired by the British countryside. OK, and as John Cleese would say-Right-. I also did not think that Darwin was a man suffering from deep personal conflict and someone who suffered dark reveries and flights of anguish. According to this film he was. It is sad that he apparently lost one of his daughters to illness, but I don't think him losing a family member would have impacted on the mans scientific abilities very much. Well, not according to...you get the picture. I think there is nothing worse than when science gets turned into fable, and to an extent this film comes off as trying to debunk evolutionary theory by saying it came from a man who was emotionally unstable, which to me, is just plain gross. I think Charles Darwin was the soul of scientific enquiry, cool and calm, and always thinking logically. This film seeks to dramatize the undramatic and sensationalize clear headed scientific exploration. It is like a Canterbury Tale. I would not recommend it.


Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.

Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.

Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.

Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed.


This is another case of Hollywood Arrogance presuming to eclipse French Style. The original, Mon Pere ce heros, was one of the most charming films of 1991 so naturally the accountants in Hollywood thought they could hire Depardieu and phone the rest in. They did, however, take the precaution of hiring Francis Veber to write an English version albeit one utilising virtually every word of the original. Depardieu brings his Gallic charm and Katherine Heigl shows all the promise that is now paying off. The thing is that when the French make a sort of Lolita-lite they get away with it because the 'dirty French postcard' thinking works in their favour; here the Hollywood idea of lightweight subtlety is to have Depardieu (totally unaware that his daughter has let it be known he is actually her lover), prevailed upon to play and song 'something French', launch into a spirited version of Thank Heaven For Little Girls. See the original.


I read somewhere (in a fairly panning review) that this is something of a live-action mecha anime, and I think they're on the right lines. I first watched this movie when I was very young and I've been dying to see it again, and when I finally did just recently all the memories came flooding back. I don't think this is to be taken too seriously - it's just a bit of good old 80's almost-a-TV-movie fun (it is set against the backdrop of a fairly dark future, although this point isn't stressed too much). What I admired most about this movie was that the dialogue didn't sound generic - no clichés, no predictable lines - all in all just good fun! Maybe time hasn't been kind to this little movie, but still I can find appreciation for it in me. It's by no means perfect, but it's entertaining and doesn't try to be anything other than that. Let the nerds and comic-store-guys worry about technicalities - who cares? See it for yourself and make your own decision. No-one else's opinion matters.


A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.

Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.

There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.


Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare.


I had heard of John Garfield, but, didn't know him. I loved this movie. I had never heard of it. I just picked it up randomly. John Garfield is a boxer in the movie. He had been in real life also so he knew his part. He was a fugitive throughout the movie. Someone else killed a man. He character was blamed. He is befriended by a family who has questions and is not quite sure what to make of him. All sorts of minor plots ensue. My favorite was the scary swimming scene in a water tower where the water was deep and one Dead End Kid couldn't swim, AND none of them could get out.John's character saves the day. The Dead End Kids were great as his friends and followers. One of them right to the very end. Ann Sheridan played the family's daughter and John's eventual love interest. She was believable, but not lovable in my opinion-the only weak link in the movie.


I was greatly disappointed by the quality of this documentary. The content is poorly produced, very poor quality video and, especially awful audio. There's extremely little about how Bruce Haack produced his music and virtually no examples of direct connection to later and contemporary electronic music. The interviews of people who knew Bruce Haack are ad-hoc mostly inarticulate mumbo-jumbo. Too much yak and not enough Haack. Although I have a serious personal interest in electronic music and have a higher than average attention span, even for slow and/or difficult subject matter, I fell asleep while watching this documentary and had to review it to see the parts I slept through. If you watch this, make sure that you are set up, before viewing, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Bruce Haack deserves much better than this. Shame on the producer and director.


I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors 'funny' lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.


This movie completely ran laps around the original Dolemite. It had everything that makes a movie great..except for real actors. (Ernie Hudson couldn't do it alone and you KNOW that! LOL) I admit that I have killed my first video tape of this movie and I plan to buy the DVD version again as soon as possible! This movie has so many catchy lines it's pitiful! I am embarrassed to say that I know the theme song backwards and forwards! I love Jimmy Lynch's character to death, and he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Award in Blaxploitation, but the Oscars were NEVER ready for this! This is a random film consisting of Crooked Cops, Breasts, Chases, Bad Editing, and of course martial arts. (Being that it's the 70's and I can say everyone knew some kind of martial arts). I think this movie should be restored and shown one night in the midst of a marathon in local theaters!


I was invited to view this film at a small art museum screening. I had no clue what to expect. I was initially optimistic in the opening credits to see Judd Nelson, Bill Paxton, Wayne Newton, James Cann, Rob Lowe, and Lara-Flynn-Boyle listed. However after some very disturbing grossed-out scenes (that did not add much to the story advancement), this film quickly became a weapon of torture. The gimmick of the vestigial growing arm storyline is never really developed. I patiently kept waiting for this film to cash-in. There was a small payoff in the end, but having to invest and sit through the the endless gross, crude, sexually-perverted, in-your-face screaming, unfunny gore cost too much for me (even for a free viewing). What were these established actors doing in this awful film? The art direction was very convincing and creepy. At the very minimum, it should only be a 75-minute film. This is a film that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would embrace.


Incomprehensibly dreadful mishmash of the probably most notorious of all Roman emperors who went insane, leaving infamous party orgies and ruthless killings in his path... I know there are several versions of this, and this is based on the 102 min' one that I watched - but I can't fathom how that possibly can make any difference to lift the rest of this movie out of the muck!

I'd heard for long about the alleged 'shocking' content of sex/nudity (which honestly there isn't much of here at all - and boring when there is) and blood, but beware - it's the technical production amateurishness that well and truly shocks here: Everything looks plain and simply like a junior film school flunk project! Camera-work is hopelessly inept, full of strange zooms, failed framing and confusing pans (to and from what mostly looks like a huge theater stage!) complete with a grainy, cheapish photo quality. Lighting and color schemes are terrible and uneven - is it day or night? Are they in- or outside? Have they changed scenes? Who is, or is meant to be in the shot? Editing is the final sin here, making a confusing mess of everything with randomly jumpy cutaways, continuity flaws and random transitions that destroy any chance of momentum, story progression - and involvement. There is potentially interesting dialog and an equally interesting true historical story... but these faults distract so much it's tragic.

A story with SO many possibilities to be great is just one gargantuan, burnt (and Fellini-like) turkey that's only good for a few gobble-laughs and Peter O'Toole, who makes a most memorable Tiberius. Oh yes, which brings us to the big-name actors. I'd like to line them all up one by one and just ask: Who did you get free access to bonk in the orgies to be a part of this? There, I've wasted enough lines on one of the truly worst films of all time - period!

1 out of 10 from Ozjeppe


Larry Bishop directs, writes, and leads this soft core porn, plot less biker movie about nothing to do with anything. To call this one of the worst movies of 2008 is being kind to the garbage that I spent money on while in theaters. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the girls mostly, who probably think they're in the making of a feature film, when in all reality they're making a porno. They walk on the set for four days, say some sexual lines to disgusting old men -- thirty years older than them -- then take off their cloths, and run around naked for the four days they're on set. I can only assume this was Larry Bishops only way to get laid. You see shot after shot directly on a girls asses. Shot after shot of Bishop walking up to some random chick and grabbing her most intimate parts, as if he were shaking her hand. How this crap was even funded is beyond me. Why Tarantino has his name on it is beyond me, but he's been slowly fading away since 1994, so I can't say I was surprised.

After 15 minutes, you get that awful feeling that only horrible (and I mean horrible) movies give you. When you see it in theaters, the pain you feel is amplified. After 15 minutes, I wanted to cry for being so stupid, and wasting, not only my time, but my hard earned ten dollars. There isn't one redeeming quality, or one moment in the movie that creates any kind of reaction or shows any kind of inclination that these people had any idea of what they are doing. If you don't see naked women all that often, then I guess this movie would be for you. If you're eleven-years-old, you will probably like it. You can't even laugh at it, because every idiot making it was laughing about the crap they were making. The acting is awful, the writing is awful, the production is awful, and the directing is awful. It's not even worth your time renting it to see the car crash. Stay away, stay very far away. You shouldn't even be reading these reviews. I shouldn't even be writing one.


This movie is the next segment in the pokemon movies which supplies everything on hopes and dreams of a pokemon warrior named Ash Ketchim and his friends. they go out and they look battle and run into new pokemon and take on new adventures with Pikachu and other pokemon favorites. This adventure takes on with a new pokemon called Celebi a time pokemon. Go join ash Brock and Misty to find all sorts of new things!


A waste of time, talent and shelf space, this is a truly abysmal film. What are big leaguers like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Dan Aykroyd wasting their time being in such rubbish?. Petty criminal Reeves turns up to his brothers (Vincent D'Onofrio) wedding and ends up leaving with the bride. A comedy?, thriller?, romance? I honestly do not know! Reeves is wooden in the lead and casting Dan Aykroyd as a cop is so dreadful it has to be seen to be believed!. Only bright spot from a dark dark tunnel is Diaz and even she isn't that good. Rent out something else. everyone involved with this mess should hold there heads in utter shame and prey that it gets lost in oblivion in the years to come.


Although some may call it a 'Cuban Cinema Paradiso', the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie.


Charles 'Chic' Sales is absolutely terrific as the sole member of the Leeds family willing to testify against a gangster they saw murder a policeman and an informant. He fought at Bull Run in the Civil War and his patriotism runs high, even after his son-in-law is beaten and one of his grandson's is kidnapped by the gang, intimidating all the other members. Fear of his grandson's death is no excuse, he says. He wouldn't want his grandson living in a country run by gangsters anyway. The conflict between civic duty and personal safety is driven home sharply in this Oscar-nominated story. Walter Huston is also a standout as the hard driving district attorney threatening the family with perjury if they don't back up their identification of the killer in court. The rest of the cast, including the sleazy killer, Ralph Ince, are all excellent, and the film is snappily directed by William A. Wellman. There's also good suspense, as Sales disappears just as the trial is about to begin.


[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Written by husband and wife Wally Wolodarsky (who also directed) and Maya Forbes, this indie film is one of the better romantic comedies in recent memory.

Jay Mohr takes a break from playing smarmy weasels to be the nice guy faced with the fact his fiancée wants to bed other people and he's allowed to do so, too. Julianne Nicholson, who was so good in 'Tully,' plays spunky and vulnerable with great gusto. Too bad she doesn't get the recognition she deserves.

Good supporting performances help immensely, too. Lauren Graham, who made last year's 'Bad Santa' memorable, plays the jaded, cynical sister to perfection, Bryan Cranston (the dad on TV's 'Malcolm in the Middle') gets a few funny, raunchy moments, and Andy Richter plays a genial guy who falls for a single mother - Helen Slater in a credible, albeit familiar, role as a mousy woman.

What surprised me most about 'Seeing Other People' was how funny it is. There are some genuine laughs here. Ed's first attempt at meaningless sex gets some great lines, and there's a ménage a trois that elicits one of the most truthful reactions from a man as the male fantasy gets tweaked.

The film's premise isn't unusual, but I liked that it was Alice (Nicholson) who thought of it, much to the chagrin of Ed (Mohr). Given the genre, you know that no matter how good her intentions are, Alice's plan is doomed. We see how the couple works through this strange situation. Initially, Alice and Ed are turned on by the idea, but then the human element sets it.

I appreciated Forbes and Wolodarsky not turning this into a cheap sex romp. Yes, there's sex and nudity, but there also are real emotions at work here. The 'other people' Alice and Ed befriend don't want to be the objects of casual sex; they have feelings, too. In one case, too many feelings.

Granted, some scenes run one joke too many, the Richter-Slater subplot isn't necessary and Alice does something truly uncharacteristic. But that's forgivable because Mohr and Nicholson generate such tremendous intimacy and honesty - check out the scenes where Ed rummages through Alice's underwear drawer or his reaction to her announcement about ending the experiment - that no matter how much we might enjoy their little game, we root for this couple to succeed.

Unfortunately, this film got little, if any, publicity and a limited release. Hollywood studios, whose romantic comedies often veer on the unfunny, turgid and unsurprising, would do well to learn from this intelligent and funny film.


You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. So, here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film. And even though NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is not technically part of the official Bond filmography, the mere presence of Sean Connery returning as 007 makes it something more than merely an honorary member of the series. Anyway, here's how it rates on a scale of 1 to 10:

Title: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN: The clever title has no apparent link to the actual storyline, but is instead an in-joke reference to Sean Connery's vow to never play OO7 again after having been lured back once before for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Whatever the case, it is a catchy title. 8 points.

Pre-Credit Teaser: Perhaps trying to avoid any obvious parallels to the official EON series of Bond films, there is no Teaser; the opening scenes are just shown behind the credits. And even that is disappointing: yet another 'oh-no, Bond has been killed' fakeout. 4 points.

Opening Credits: Other than a screen full of tiny 007's, they didn't even bother trying to jazz up the credits with graphics or split screens or interesting camera angles. 1 points.

Theme Song: As written by Michel LeGrand and sung by Lani Hall 'Never Say Never Again' would make for a perfectly pleasant part of a particularly long elevator ride. As a Bond theme, it's merely okay. 6 points.

'Bond, James Bond': Appropriately, since this film sees Connery being lured back into service as Bond after a decade's hiatus, the story begins with 007 facing the question as to whether Bond/Connery is still up to the job. Happily, Connery more than proves himself ready for Bondage again. Though he is a bit grayer, sporting a bit more girth and wearing a slightly more obvious toupee, he seems to have no trouble slipping back into action. All in all, it is one of Connery's best, and most relaxed, turns as the character. 9 points.

Bond Babes: Even in the best of the Bond films, the female characters aren't given much dimension; they exist largely as necessary props for Bond's use. Future Oscar-winner Kim Basinger is granted a great deal of leeway in creating her character of Domino Petachi and the film benefits from this. She does a nice job -- and she's not bad to look at either. 8 points.

Bond Villain: The reports of his death being obviously exaggerated, Blofeld is back -- at least, for the moment -- showing he has more lives than his prized pussycat. One-time Jesus portrayer-turned-stereotypical villain, Max von Sydow isn't given a lot to do in the role, but is a silky presence nonetheless. But he is overshadowed by a wonderful performance by Klaus Maria Brandauer as Maximilian Largo. After a string of banal Bond villains, it is so refreshing for Brandauer to gave a performance that is both subtle, yet colorfully evil. Funny without being campy, ruthless without seeming cartoonish; his Largo ranks right up there with Auric Goldfinger as one of Bond's best villains. 10 points.

Bond Baddies: Fatima Blush! What can I say? As played with all the bold style of a particularly flamboyant drag queen, Barbara Carrera breezes through the film, displaying a mix of self-amused evil and more than a tad of pure psychotic insanity. Bond has crossed paths with a variety of femmes fatales, most of whom have been so easily disposed of that they existed more as amusing eye candy than as characters. But few dared to exhibit such a flare for the dramatic or such fierce determination. Even her untimely demise is spectacular, even by Bondian standards. 10 points.

Sinister Plot: As a remake of sorts of THUNDERBALL, the film does seem a bit been-there-done-that: nuclear missiles are stolen and major real estate will go kaboom if all the countries of the world don't pay a multi-kazillion dollar ransom. But at least producer Kevin McClory was lucky enough to find himself forced to remake one of the weakest Bond adventures. By comparisons, this effort blows THUNDERBALL out of the water. And despite the absence of many Bondian trademarks, the film succeeds on its own. 9 points.

Production values: The film starts out with an uneasy style, like a TV movie trying to be more than it can. But as the story progress, the film gains momentum and a sense of purpose, making it a superior adventure. 8 points.

Bonus Points: There are several odd changes that sets this Bond film apart from the official series. Miss Moneypenny is hardly acknowledged; as played by Edward Fox, 'M' is a cranky old grouch with no respect for the 'Double Os,' a foreshadowing of how Judi Dench would later play the part; and 'Q' suddenly has a cockney accent and is all buddy-buddy with Bond. And there is a curious sense of nostalgia throughout the film, such as replacing Bond's Astin-Martin with a vintage Packard and a tango dance number that is cleverly inserted into the story. And a big rescue near the end is on horseback, an homage to THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which was itself a tribute to the Bond films. 5 points.

Summary: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a mixed bag. In the really important areas, it more than holds it own thanks to hero Connery, villain Brandauer, assassin Carrera and damsel-in-distress Basinger. But the devil is in the details; as seemingly unimportant as the opening credits, theme song and such seem, the film is lacking because of their absence. It all comes off as a faux Bond film; a very good substitute, but a substitute nonetheless.

Bond-o-meter Rating: 78 points out of 100.


I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.

This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.


A team of amateur journalists and tree-huggers catches wind of a secret government project, Project Carnivore, on a remote South Pacific island. The scientists there are producing giant-sized corn, but the genes are spreading to other species, creating abnormally large Komodo dragons and a cobra (one that's bullet-proof and swims underwater). With the help of the scientist's daughter, can they escape the island and tell the world? Even if i hadn't seen this film on the Sci-Fi Channel (which, sadly, i did) it would scream 'Sci-Fi Channel' with its low production value, weak acting and some of the worst special effects in history. The effects here are comparable to another creature film, 'Raptor Island', although not nearly as bad. I would suspect that there must be at least a handful of people that worked on both films, but I haven't bothered to confirm that and probably won't. It will be a sad day when I see either of them films again.

Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. I watched it at two in the morning with my sister's boyfriend and I can't speak for him, but I thought it was a pretty good use of time. As bad the whole thing is, it's a fun picture if you like to make fun of movies and the scientist's daughter is attractive enough to carry the film (I believe the actress' name is Michelle Borth). Michael Pare also appears as a ship captain, and his poor choice of roles here actually makes his work on 'Furnace' look respectable (even if that movie is intolerably bad).

I can't be too hard on this film simply because it was more or less exactly what I thought it would be. Bad effects? Low budget? No-name actors? I didn't have any higher hopes. Yet, this doesn't mean that it's awesome, either. Coming in at par is nothing to be proud of and this one will slowly fade into the distant memory department. For the one fan who likes this film (and calls it 'KvC'), hold on to your copy because you'll have a heck of a time getting a replacement.


RENDITION is a film not to miss with solid writing from Kelley Sane and with the direction of Gavin Hood that takes us on a story which is a ride through a man's journey through hell. Once again, Meryl Streep in a convincing role of the CIA today and great performances from a cast of superlative actors in Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhall and Alan Arkin, along with actors of Middle Eastern descent who add to the reality of the story.

In RENDITION you see how 'terrorism can breed terrorism' and as the film progresses tying the story to what is playing out in the Middle East is reality brought to the screen. The external shots add to the intensity of the story and Peter Sarsgaard does a brilliant job of playing an Assistant in the 'ass kissing' way of how American politics are conducted. Too bad there has not been a larger audience for this film, as along with THE VALLEY OF ELAH and LIONS FOR LAMBS, RENDITION plays an important role in showing an audience how the fight for and the protection of democracy can go seriously astray.


Everyone knows that late night movies aren't Oscar contenders. Fine. I mean I'll admit that I was a bit tipsy and bored and figured I'd get to some skin-a-max. It's pretty bad when the info on the TV guide channel makes fun of the movie in the description. It even gave it half a star. To be fair, I did sit throw the whole thing cause man it was soooooooooo bad. I couldn't stop laughing. I mean the words coming out of these people mouth and how they were trying to be serious. Most of the time I think the people on the screen were trying their hardest to not to laugh. In fact I think in one scene they did laugh. Anyways the movie didn't make sense. It was like that one Sopranos episode with the fat gay guy. Only the Sopranos is great show. But it was terrible, I mean, no nudity, just sex scenes out of the 90's. You know the kind that use shadows and silhouettes instead of flesh. I gave it a two cause this flick makes for a good drinking game movie. I mean with all the cheese, it helps to get the wine out. If its late at night, and all that is on TV is this and that Tony Little guy and his exercise bike, then I suggest Tony Little.


Wow! That James Purefoy looks exactly like Thomas Jane!

That's the most profound thought I took with me after having seen the rather underwhelming George And The Dragon. For a fantasy comedy, the story was very dull and the effects unspectacular.

The problem wasn't the acting. James Purefoy makes a good knight, and his various side-kicks are not bad characters. I even thought Patrick Swayze in this role was a pretty good idea, too. Flat-chested Piper Perabo also had some nice potential. I even liked the kid.

But the story and everything that happens, and the *way* it happens, was just 'eh'. Not interesting. Compared to another recent fantasy comedy, Ella Enchanted, which was actually funny, this movie comes up terribly short. I'm sorry for the decent actors who were in this yawn-inducing trudgery.

4 out of 10.


Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his 'approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.

So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.

I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.

Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.

Spare yourself the agony.


A sophisticated contemporary fable about the stresses that work to loosen and ultimately unbind the vows of marriage. The main thrust of the narrative arises from a 'homily' spoken by a country priest following the wedding vows of a young cosmopolitan couple from Milan. In it, the future course of the marriage is spelled out, which bit by bit frays from the stresses of modern life. The 'moral' of this story within a story is that in order for a marriage to work out, both now, and in the past, it has been necessary for that relationship to be abutted by family and friends. This film was a relative blockbuster by domestic Italian standards. It's a terrible shame that this film is not available in either DVD or VHS.


The parallels between this film and 'Captain Walrus' (an independant film shown at the Team Projection Film Festival in 1994) are so blindingly obvious that any praise for 'Sally Marshall Is Not An Alien' must be viewed with the knowledge that it is riding on the success of another work.

In Captain Walrus, two young boys (Geoff and Roger, played by Dean Turner and Brett Allen respectively) examine the bizarre behaviour of their new neighbour Britney (played by Louise Farley). As the two boys watch through their telescope, they observe the repeated visits of a man in uniform who they call Captain Walrus (played by Peter Sargent). However, the emphasis in Captain Walrus is on the pointless and somewhat power-hungry actions of the neighbour Britney, and less on the friendship between the two boys.

A critical success at the film festival, the plot of Captain Walrus has obviously been appropriated and rehashed in order to give the Australian Film Community another notch on the belt with regards to children's product. Although Sally Marshall is not an Alien is a fine film, and a credit to its producers, its inauthenticity leaves something to be deserved.


I got a DVD of 'Bogeyman' and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was 'Boogeyman II' because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who 'assume': it makes an 'ass-' out of 'u-' and 'me.' I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching 'Return of the Boogeyman,' I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right?

Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in 'Boogeyman II' is forever lost.

Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.


Some sort of accolades must be given to `Hellraiser: Bloodline'. It's actually out Full-Mooned Full Moon. It bears all the marks of, say, your `Demonic Toys' or `Puppet Master' series, without their dopey, uh, charm? Full Moon can get away with silly product because they know it's silly. These Hellraiser things, man, do they ever take themselves seriously. This increasingly stupid franchise (though not nearly as stupid as I am for having watched it) once made up for its low budgets by being stylish. Now it's just ish.


In this desperate and thoroughly silly attempt to keep Hammer's Dracula franchise alive despite having lost most of its power long time already, our legendary vampire is brought back to life in the swinging London of 1972. Exactly hundred years after he was destroyed by his archenemy Van Helsing, an occult disciple named Johnny Alucard (get it? get it?) gathers his flamboyant friends in an abandoned church, among them Van Helsing's great granddaughter Jessica, and performs a satanic ritual that resurrects Dracula in a haze of smoke. Dracula's only mission is to wreak havoc upon the entire Van Helsing lineage and fragile Jessica is the ideal victim to achieve this. This is probably the only 70's film that goes immensely over the top in trying to look likea 70's film! Considering the previous six Dracula films were all set in the Victorian era, director Alan Gibson really wants to stress the fact we're in the 20th century now and thus he stuffs his film with insufferable hippie-characters, hideous 70's fashion trends and awful 70's music. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing seem hopelessly lost in this setting and their performances regretfully show it. The opening sequence (a flashback) and the showdown climax are fairly enjoyable, but everything in between is painfully boring and the complete opposite of scary. The greatest elements in this series of films have always been Dracula's dark castles and the exhilarating coach races and, obviously, this installment lacks all of that. Luckily for the fans, Hammer Studios contemporary released other films revolving on vampires that are much better ('The Vampire Lovers', 'Twins of Evil', 'The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires'). Not recommended.


Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way.


Love Jones is one of the best movies I've experienced.

The main element that sticks out to me is the fact that it is very well-directed. I have studied this film in it's entirety - with watching movies more than once, certain things dawn on you subconsciously - the direction of this movie, as well as the writing, is chic, hip, and artful! I am in love with the direction. The scene where Larenz Tate and Nia Long are riding the motorcycle through north Chicago at night is astonishing. The director of this movie DESERVED awards for his great job.

Love Jones is a classy and sexy film. It highlights the fact that we can be people who love, who have flaws, who love living, learning, and just being us without the hype. Being our Natural selves.

The poetry is wonderful, but the story line, the dialog, and the scenes really make this movie.

This movie deserves to be seen. It is a great movie for lovers and friends to sit back and watch, or, the hopeless romantic (like myself) to sit back and enjoy alone on a Friday or Saturday night. Any day of the week where peace, solitude, and a little entertainment is needed, Love Jones is what I recommend.


Unique movie about confused woman (Lindsay Crouse) who gets involved with sharp con men. Joe Mantegna gives an Oscar-caliber performance as the slickest of the group. Absolutely enchanting first hour, as Mantegna shows Crouse 'the ropes' of his con games. Story line unravels a bit later on, but still stands as a unique portrayal of an innocent caught up in a dark world. Definitely worth a shot.


I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's 'Expelled' and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.

I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.

That being said, this a bad 'documentary' for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just 'come on, really?' which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.

If one compares this to Ben Stein's 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.

Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or 'average' practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of 'patriotic duty' that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.

Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in 'clever' out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.

For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.


This movie was different from most of Jimmy Cangey's films of the 1930s in that it was NOT done by Warner Brothers/First National, but was a loan-out to a smaller studio. Because it was a 'poverty row' studio, the production values are lower than you might be used to seeing with Cagney films. Plus, the plot is certainly one of the strangest I have seen. Instead of him being a gangster, he was a good guy in this one--fighting for the law. This isn't all that unusual because Cagney frequently played lawmen--such as an OSS leader (the forefather of the CIA) of FBI agent. BUT, to make him an investigator for the Bureau of Weights and Measures was indeed odd--especially since, at times, he acted pretty much the same way he did in the movie G-MEN!

All in all, a time passer and that's about it.

Finally, the videotape I saw this on from Memory Lane Video was perhaps one of the poorest I have ever encountered. The sound was terrible and scratchy and the print looked very white and had lots of torn film and gaps.


Before watching this movie I thought this movie will be great as Flashpoint because before watching this movie Flashpoint was the last Jenna Jameson and Brad Armstrong movie I previously watched. As far as sexual scenes are concerned I was disappointed, I thought sexual scenes of Dreamquest will be great as Flashpoint sexual scenes but I was disappointed. Except Asia Carrera's sexual scene, any sexual scene in this movie doesn't make me feel great (you know what I mean). The great Jenna Jameson doesn't do those kind of sexual scenes of what she is capable of. Felecia and Stephanie Swift both of those lovely girls disappoint me as well as far as sexual scenes are concerned.

Although its a adult movie but if you aside that sexual scenes factor, this movie is very good. If typical adult movie standards are concerned this movie definitely raised the standards of adult movies. Story, acting, direction, sets, makeups and other technical stuff of this movie are really great. The actors of this movie done really good acting, they all done a great job. Dreamquest is definitely raised the bar of quality of adult movies.


I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still have a good laugh.

In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the girl pretends that her father is her lover.


I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be '55 Days at Peking'. The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!


If you see the title '2069 A Sex Odyssey' in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other '80's' porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think '80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!' Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.


To be honest, I thought this movie would be a Japanese drama. I was dead wrong. This movie is based of the popular Japanese anime novel of the same name. It tells the story of a town that is cursed by the Uzumaki or The Spiral in English. Little by little the towns residents start to slowly become dangerously and violently obsessed with anything to do with spirals and some of the residents start to actually turn into living things the actually have some sort of spiral within them such as a snail.

The movie was one giant, random, acid trip twisted with romance and drama. Sort of like atwisteddrama. What makes this movie disturbing is the ways that some of the people are obsessed with The Spiral. For example: one of the dads has a garage full of house hold objects with spirals incorporated into them, one girl took her extremely long hair and teased to an insanely huge spiral-like style, one kid slowly transformed into a human snail, one man could twist his body into a spiral shape, one woman attempted to cut her ear open to obtain the cochlea inside and one teen ran over himself so that he could be twisted around a car tire and one kid stuffed himself into a washer so he could become a spiral.

Another very disturbing aspect of this very well syndicated is the atmospheric tone and the style in which this movie was shot. The camera angles add to the psychotic and twisted story, in other words, a very good cinematography. The overall coloring of this picture makes for a somewhat demented story. The coloring is a blend of lime green, yellow and a little orange and the special effects with some of the spirals are outstanding.

However, like many Japanese films, this one has an undertone of forbidden love and romance between a girl and a boy. However, with all the spirals and strange happening going on in the town it is hard to keep up with the relationship of the two teens. But, in some way it is very irrelevant, more like a second hand story that has nothing to do with the actual story of the spiral obsessed town.

Overall, I would recommend this film to anybody who likes vastly different and bizarre foreign films. It has just enough wackiness and insanity, it touched me.


This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10


I know this movie isn't for everyone, and I won't push my opinions on you, but what I have to say is the truth about how many people feel about this movie...It was the best I have ever seen!!! It was soooooooooooooooooo funny, and even though it wasn't the scariest movie I had ever seen, it kept me on the edge of my seat, because I didn't know what was gonna happen next. If you like funny scary movies, you have got to see this one!


It was only a matter of time that a spoof would be made of sports movies! And there are plenty of movies to be spotted which are made fun off. But the biggest problem I had was the fact that it stays with recognizing movies. The director and writers of 'The Comebacks' somehow forget to get creative. While I must admit that I laughed at certain scenes,'The Comebacks' could have been so much funnier. The actors forget to deliver their lines seriously and have a straight face throughout the movie. A spoof demands this and that is the main reason why silly jokes work in movies like this. Because of the failure of the cast to do so the jokes never hit their mark. Some scenes take forever and normally in spoofs that doesn't have to be a problem. Take 'Naked Gun' for instance. Their is always something happening on screen. In 'The Comebacks' they didn't even bother to let stuff happening in the background. Only a couple of factors make this movie worth watching! It still is fun to spot the movies that are made fun off. And Jermaine Williams as Ipod. His parody on Cuba Gooding Jr. as Radio was hilarious! He seemed to be the only one in the cast to get the idea of what a spoof is about. Not entirely bad!


Spoiler This is a great film about a conure. He goes through quite the ordeal trying to get back to his little girl owner. He learns a lot through his journey and meets up with a lot of other beautiful birds. If you love birds like my wife does, this film is for you. This film also has some sad parts that make the tears run. In the end it all works out for Paulie and his Russian friend. Rent this for the whole family, everyone will enjoy this.


This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..

There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.

But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).

If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie..


The story of a little girl who was driven once by fear and now by pain, she becomes woman and a vengeful crime fighter. Her power is to manifest strong anime characters onto herself. This movie fuses animation with live action as she wields her animated sword through all that stands before her. She struggles to deal with life, her demons, and her fears.

Young Emily watched her parents fight and argue. She watched her Dad leave her motherless. Emily soon discovered she had the power to do something about it. Emily grew through life traveling as a loner and at night she had the power to make a difference in the world.

This movie is a great blend of animation and real action. There are many themes and metaphors that run deep through the movie. This movie is broke up as a 12 part series.


'A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something.'--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of 'Watch on the Rhine' could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in 'Destination Tokyo' (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in 'The Sound of Music' (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in 'It Happened Here' (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that 'Watch' sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and 'enough' didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody 'dictatorship of the proletariat' replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher 'the Butcher' and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. 'Watch on the Rhine' has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.


This film is not at all as bad as some people on here are saying. I think it has got a decent horror plot and the acting seem normal to me. People are way over-exagerating what was wrong with this. It is simply classic horror, the type without a plot that we have to think about forever and forever. We can just sit back, relax, and be scared.


The greatest Tarzan ever made! This movie is done in a way that no other Tarzan ever has come close in doing. It has every thing in it that you would want in a Tarzan movie. No other Tarzan movie ever has or ever will portray the character this well. I would say that if you have seen a Tarzan movie and liked it you should see this one you will love it, and if you have never seen Tarzan you should see this one and forget the rest of them.


Return to Me is a charming gem of a movie. With an absolutely star studded cast, who can go wrong with this modern day fairy tale? It also includes many, many jokes written by the funny girl herself Bonnie Hunt, who wrote and directed this film. David Duchovny is also very good, showing a different approach then from his everday alter-ego mulder on my favourite show the x-files. a great date movie!


I was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the 'blackface' fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies 'Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs' or 'Angel Puss' you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.

'Plane' unnecessary. -1 out of 10.


A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film!

And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?

Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!

If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?


This is the first time I ever saw a movie with Jamie Foxx, and I bet it will be my last. I failed to see why he was funny, although people in the audience thought it was very funny when he made a face to the camera, or for saying 'I am going to take a shower'.

The plot is completely predictable. The bad guy comes after the good guy. The good guy has a woman, so the bad guy uses her. In between, the officials screwing up. The final scenes are utterly unbelievable. You spend 2 years and millions of dollars chasing a guy, but you don't do your home work to solve a trivial riddle?

There's no great acting, there isn't much of a plot or storyline, and the shooting is done MTV style. Don't waste your money on this one.


This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!


I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!


The Hookers was to me a great everyday people story, Like someone you might have known. Just trying to make it, my big shot is right around the corner. Then Life's little temptations creep in, the spoiler, stumbled again. How much, can your love take, and give, to the guy who's really not so bad, after all, just Human. I liked it, I was also a paid extra in the movie. Played the drums in the bar shots, with the band, did several walking shots, my green 66' corvette was in the motel party shots. Wonderful cast and crew, first rate people, down to earth movie. I had lunch with James Coburn, on Mother's Day, what a wonderful man, just like I've known him for years, I'll never forget him. My father spent the day with Slim Pickens, and swapped horse stories, Slim also was really down to earth, love those guys, we really miss them. Real people making movies about real people, Thanks Levy, Gardner, and Laven.


No Strings Attached features Carlos Mencia doing stand-up that makes us both laugh and think. Not only does he poke fun at racial issues (like many haters claim), but he also talks about the best way to get illegal immigrants out of the country...what women mean when they say they want to be treated equally...why Americans are crazier than Arab terrorists...why nobody needs to pray for the pope - and what he hopes he's doing in heaven...a theory of how Easter (aka Big Ups to Jesus Day) traditions got started...his viewing of the movie Passion of the Christ - and his sub-sequential argument with a woman about whether or not he's affected by Jesus...how society should treat the physically handicapped...and even if you have the right to tell a joke or not.

Also, he never stops reminding us that each of us has a voice. So we should use it to speak the truth, say what we think, and not be afraid if others are offended.

Carlos is the bomb.