I wish it were 'Last Dumb Thriller'. But thrillers are like that. They are like children: numerous, illogical, and often annoying. They want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child's behaviour or a thriller's plot? Having seen this particular child - I mean... thriller - I understand why reviewers refer to it as 'a hitchcockian thriller'; they might as well have called it 'idiotic' for that's what 'hitchcockian' means in the movie dictionary (look it up, if you don't believe me). Even the soundtrack is old-school Hollywood which is a mistake: it doesn't fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. Besides, how dare they steal De Palma's idea of stealing from Hitchcock?! The story is absurd. Scheider's wife is killed, and her killers are never an issue. Instead, first his former employers follow him around, and later decide to kill him. Why do they decide to kill him? No explanation. Perhaps because the FBI is a dark, dark organization ('X-Files') which is very trigger-happy about knocking off its former employees for pension-funds reasons. Or perhaps because it's fashionable to want to kill Scheider in this movie; everyone seems to be after him. And while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy, in reality the killer is... Janet Margolin! Yes, the woman occupying Scheider's living quarters; the one that briefly hinted she was 'depraved'. Why does she go after Scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid - and followed by his own ex-employers - and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife's murder? A pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary, in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. And how about that brilliant motive of hers...! Her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh-off-the-boat 15 year-old virgin in NY, and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny Jewish men, one of whom - tah-dah! - is Scheider's grandfather. As a result, Margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once-virginal grandmother. How hitchcockian (look it up) is that? The finale then shamelessly rips off the Mount Rushmore scene from 'North By Northwest', except that the love-interest is a killer and she doesn't get saved.

The movie also offers some dubious/off-kilter dialog and some not-so great acting. Check out the silly and obvious way in which Napier follows Scheider at the cemetery. Let's also not forget the moronic plot-device of Napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously - but it wasn't a gun! How brilliant! Napier in the tower: now, there's another string of illogical behavioural patterns. J. Demme was, is, and always will be a director without style, without flair, and the man who directed 'Philadelphia'. Let's give him another Oscar!


The very first time I heard of Latter Days was when I was renting DVD's and I was interested as I am a member of the LDS Church. I found this movie very heartfelt and in several areas it made me cry. The reason for this is that too many years ago I knew a young man who went through what Aaron (played by Steve Sandvoss)does in Latter Days, but unlike Aaron this dear young man did not survive the ordeal. He ended up taking is life after his church, his friends, and his family disowned him because he was gay. There have been many people who do not think that the things that are shown in the movie really happen in this day and age, but the sorry and sad thing is they do. For those of you out their who are gay and young you need to see this movie and if you are a gay Mormon you really need to see this movie. Plus if you get the DVD there is help for you listed in the DVD. Teenage suicide in the gay world is very disturbing and this movie touches it but that part is hidden to a degree. The acting and the music is excellent. This movie sold out every movie house that it showed but it only showed in major cities and had a very limited release, so for those who would like to see this movie I would recommend the DVD release. The only people that I know who did not like the movie are members of my own church and they did not see the movie because of the subject matter gays and the LDS Church. See the movie, experience the story, and feel the emotions that are showcased in this movie you I feel will not be disappointed.


If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.

Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.

I hate the term 'so bad it's good', but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.


Every country which has a working film industry has some sane (and maybe some insane) artist which make movies that you can only completely understand when you're a part of this country. I guess Hundstage is such a movie.

You see the lowest level of Austria's society, dirty, disturbed, weird, hateful. But they still have enough money so they can afford tuned cars and big houses. And they are definitely doing a lot of strange things here which maybe seems for them 'normal' because they're doing it through their whole life. From a normal human viewpoint you can now easily follow the movie and be disgusted or fascinated and watch a fine piece of Austria's art movies.

But if you LIVE here and you know the people you see the characters in Hundstage as the tumor of the society. A society that is going more insane from day to day, creating their own rules that nobody else can understand, cave the social system from within. And you SEE the people. Sitting in the park, standing at the opposite street corner, queuing in the same line. Maybe you meet 'em in a bar or a disco you may visit. Maybe you even work with them in your job or they are living next to your house. You start to hate them without exactly knowing why. You'll try to get away - but you cannot. Maybe you'll end up like them. But it seems 'normal' for you because you're doing it through your whole life now...

Life isn't so bright though Austria is one of the richest countries in the world. It has beautiful people... but some are also ugly. There are a lot of hard working persons trying their best... but there are also some riding on the back of others and destroying everything that the folk of Austria has built up so far.

A very pessimistic movie.


I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched 'Garam Masala'. I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that 'air hostesses' are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous.

The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play 'Boeing Boeing.' The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)


Dr. Stephens (Michael Harvey), head of a seriously understaffed institute for the insane, takes a 'progressive' approach towards the treatment of his patients, even allowing his loonies complete freedom of the building, day and night; he pays the price for his forward thinking, however, when he rather stupidly prescribes chopping wood with an axe as therapy for one of his patients and consequently gets his neck mistaken for a log (serves him right for not suggesting basket weaving).

Shortly after this tragic incident, nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the hospital to take up position as the doctor's assistant, and discovers that the facility is now being run by the much sterner Dr. Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick). Despite being unaware of her deceased predecessor's decision to employ Ms Beale, and not particularly eager to take on new staff, Dr. Masters agrees to let the pretty nurse begin work, but following several harrowing experiences at the hospital, Charlotte begins to wonder whether it might have been better if she had been turned away.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is actually happening at the hospital, the 'lunatics have taken over the asylum' schtick being a premise that should be familiar to most seasoned horror fans, but S.F. Brownrigg's Don't Look In The Basement still proves to be an entertaining piece of drive-in fun thanks to its well defined collection of nutters: lobotomised, popsicle-sucking Sam (Bill McGhee); Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross), who continuously mumbles courtroom phrases; old Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams), who recites William Allingham's creepy poem The Fairies and warns Charlotte of impending doom; cackling loon Danny (Jessie Kirby), who delights in teasing the other patients; Harriet (Camilla Carr), who thinks her doll is a real baby; army nut Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin); and best of all, Allyson King (Betty Chandler), whose rejection by a series of men has left her with a craving for love (ie., she tries to jump any man who goes near her).

This convincingly crazy set of characters, plus a bit of gore and nudity, reasonable direction from Brownrigg (who also gave us the impressive white trash horror Scum of the Earth), and a solid turn from Playboy covergirl Holotik, all go to turn an otherwise rather predictable, low budget piece of exploitation into a very watchable psycho shocker.


Having watched 10 minutes of this movie I was bewildered, having watched 30 minutes my toes were curling - I simply couldn't believe it: The movie is really awful. In fact it is so awful, that I had to watch all of it just to be convinced(!). During this, I came to realize that it reminded me of a bunch of Danish so-called comedies from the 60's and 70's. The pattern is as follows: Take one extremely popular comedian, make a script putting this comedian in as many grotesque situations as possible, add a bunch of jokes (especially one-liners), and spice it up with a couple of beautiful young girls - film that, and you have a success! I wouldn't know if this movie was a success, but unlike the Danish tradition which died quietly (with a few great comedians) it seems that there is a market for this kind of movie in the US.


I saw this film under the title of 'Tied Up'. In general I have enjoyed Dolph's movies, so gave this one a try. It wasn't worth it. I have read some of the previous comments about the box enticing viewers. Don't be fooled. This is a poor film at best. The acting is nonexistent. The plot, what little there is of one, is very predictable. The movie in places seems to be chopped together. This one just plain stinks the place up. Not even worth the price of a cheap night rental. As a bit of a Dolph fan, I kept waiting to see him in action. By the end of the movie, you will still be waiting. Best to avoid this film, and spend your time watching almost anything else.


The best thing one can say about the film 'Traffic' is that it brought attention to the superior British mini-series 'Traffik'. As many people have noted, the current film suffers from truncating the story to accommodate the short attention span of cinemagoers and the turn-around time of the theater owners, who measure a film's success by the overpriced food sales.

I first recorded this mini series in 1990 when it was shown on Public TV and have watched it many times. The whole documentary-style series has a strong element of tragedy and doom about it, as the characters are all moving toward their eventual fate. The strongest of the three tales is that of the Pakistani family forced into the City to find a way to keep body and soul together after the poppy crop is burned by the army in a staged show of force put on for the benefit of western politicians. The hardships of the family are similar to that of the rickshaw pullers family in 'City of Joy'. Eventually the farmer finds work, but he compromises his pride and honesty.

The Pakistani segment of the film has a particular relevance to today, with the fight against the supporters of Al Quaeda, and gives some understanding of the support for such movements among the disadvantaged poor of Pakistan and Afghanistan who rarely receive any of the money going into those countries. The film makes a point that the farmers see barely 25% of the aid which is supposed to encourage them to grow other crops.

With the American inability to see anything other than in terms of black and white - good guys v. bad guys - it is interesting to see another view where there is no black and white, only shades of grey.

Possible spoiler ahead. The only problem I had with the story was that rather than things continuing as they did before, as they would in real life, being a work of fiction they had to wrap it up with the 'bad guys' getting what was coming to them. Other than that, this was a fine piece of work of the kind we see all too rarely. The cast was outstanding and the German and Pakistani locations helped give the film a 'different' feel (what a change it made seeing Germans as something other than the villains in a WWII film).


Good grief.. to think I've seen it all.. Danny Thomas looks SO out of place in this mishmash. He seems really uncomfortable. He can't sing worth a lick, and when he's paired up with Peggy Lee (PEGGY LEE???) she easily.. EASILY outsings him! Maybe the director saw this and made him do the reall really bad comedy routines that he sometimes does in the film. Peggy Lee is okay, but the whole thing is a shambles. Good for a laugh, maybe.


There isn't one decent scene.

Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well.

Then the dialogue is also crap.

Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them...

Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?

Lame.

The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was 'the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him'. She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.

And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw 'losers', only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?

Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid.

There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.

After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera.

The end...

Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.


I recalled watching this program as a young boy in Australia in the 60s, and enjoyed it on DVD again as a 50-year-old father of young kids. Although the bad guys are mostly shallow characters and there is a component of violence, I am very happy to have my 6- and 8-year old kids watch this because the central characters are deep, kind and honourable, the Japanese culture shines through, the violence is not gory, nobody glories in it, and the program is beautiful to watch. It does not promote nightmares, but instead it shows much of the culture that must have primarily influenced the design of Jedi knights in Star Wars.

The quality of the DVDs does leave something to be desired. Video perfectionists will not like this one. It is strongly reminiscent of something held on 16mm film and projected onto the wall in some basement... which it may well be. The soundtrack is also lacking in the quality we have come to expect from home theatre. However, my kids noticed only that it was not in colour, and I suspect they only noticed that because we had been talking recently about how old things are often like that. The beauty of Mt Fuji is evident even in B&W. Something about the 17th-century setting makes the quality part of the atmosphere, as if you peer into the past through some time window.

Overall this program is better than most things on the air, and a far better advertisement for Japanese TV than Pokemon, but you may consider it of marginal value if you did not have the experience of seeing it back in the 60s. My score of 8/10 takes its age into account.


Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits.


Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Where One Ends, Another Begins

This is a prototypical film noir, and as such, pretty flawless, from both style and content points of view. The photography and night settings are first rate (cinematographer Joseph LaShelle lets the drama ooze in scene after scene), and the close-ups on faces pure expressionism. I can watch this kind of film for the visuals alone, even when the actors struggle and the plot stinks.

But the acting is first rate here, and the plot features what I consider the core of most noir films, the alienated male lead (representing the many men returning home to a changed United States after the war and feeling lost themselves). In fact, not only is Dana Andrews really convincing as the troubled, loner detective, he has a small but important counterpart in the film, the lead female's (first) husband, an decorated ex-GI fallen onto hard times and booze. The fact the one man kills the other might be of monumental significance, overall-- the regular guy struggling through his inner problems to success while the medal-wearing soldier slips into an accidental death with a silver plate in his head. The woman transitions from one to the other--we assume they marry and have children as suggested earlier in the movie. Even if this is pushing an interpretation onto it after the fact, we can still see the path of one man with some psychological baggage careening through a crisis to the highest kind of moral order--turning himself in for a small crime just at the point he has actually gotten away with it.

This movie belongs to Andrews. He plays a far more restrained and moving type than Kirk Douglas plays in a similar role in William Wyler's Detective Story made just one year later, and Andrews certainly is less theatrical. You could easily see both movies side by side for a textbook compare and contrast session. The fact that Andrews as Detective Dixon is morally struggling through it all, and Douglas as Detective McLeod is not, might explain why one man gets his girl and the other doesn't. Gene Tierney pulls off a hugely sympathetic, demurring, and ultimately conventional and 'pretty' type of woman--not just a cardboard desirable, but someone you want Dixon to actually marry.

The criminal plot is really secondary to the main drama, but is effective enough in its play with types and clichés. The bit parts are kept snappy, the small details (like the portable craps table) nice touches, far from the character actors or the glamour of gambling in Casablanca. But then, Curtiz's great movie is iconic even in the details--it makes no effort to be subtle and real and penetrating, but instead is sweeping and memorable and inspiring. They come at opposite ends of the war, and represent opposite possibilities for their leading men. Bogart is beginning his active duty, Dixon, and the man Dixon has killed, are all through. Through, thoroughly, but not washed up.

It's no accident that many, possibly most, film noirs have what you would call 'happy' endings. The man overcomes his adversaries and transforms his inner self, and the moviegoer, then and now, understands just how beautiful that must feel.


The sitcom 'The league of Gentlemen' follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village 'Royston Vasey'. The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.

In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a 'local' shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims.

Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.

Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about 'her' sexual conversion.

Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the 'real' sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.

Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.

In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: 'Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave.'

Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.


I have seen Dirty Work several times and is probably my favourite Stan and Ollie short.

In this one, Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and get the job to clean the chimney at the home of Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield). While Noodle is doing mad experiments in his lab, Stan and Ollie cause much chaos trying to clean the chimney and make a mess of the living room. The end is where Ollie falls into a tank of special formula that Noodle uses for his experiments and this turns him into a chimp! The best part is where Ollie falls down the chimney and loads of bricks land on his head, but he doesn't seem to suffer much pain from this.

Dirty Work is Stan and Ollie at their funniest. Great fun.

Rating: 5 stars out of 5.


No emotion. Bad music (and I am a reformed eighties metal guy, so I would be vulnerable to some good stuff.) Everything is half done. The brother is a parody, there is nothing to hold us in except to see what horror from the eighties they'll pull up next. The tour manager tries to bring a humanity to the thing but isn't given enough time. Wahlberg is okay and Aniston is slumming. We know she didn't need the money. Is this the only role she could fit into her summer break? Surely she must slap her forehead every time it pops up on VH1--which is only slightly less often than Ozzy does. It barely qualifies as a TV movie. It's just hard to believe that it was actually released theatrically.


What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.

The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.

Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'. Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.

Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.

A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.

4/10


I'm lucky enough to have a good quality copy of my VHS on DVD so I can now watch this over and over again. The characters are so well played I can't find fault with any aspect of the casting. OK, so there are a few differences from the book, but the old cliché of love conquering all is so powerfully portrayed that it makes no difference. The reality of living in the rural countryside of early 19th century England is beautifully contrasted by the changing seasons, from biting winter to glorious summer days and this is mirrored in the different characters, from Prue's bullying father to Kester's all encompassing love. A story that changed my life.


I am not a usual commenter on this website but seeing how underrated this movie is, I endeavour myself to write some comments and remarks about it. I had fun watching this movie, perhaps because Cat is everything I wish I could be, I am not going to post spoilers or reveal plots but there's are things that i really found amazing, the way she manipulates people it's just so divine. this is a very underrated movie, I lack of arguments here, I usually go enjoy and then speak little about it, when you go to the movies is to have fun, and i really enjoyed the 1h53 i stayed in the dark room. a must seen over and over again until the delight fades away. let's try not be so critical about it. thank you for reading.


I know, it's a movie. But when it comes to portray real life (in any matter) it should be as faithful as possible. I'm sorry, but 'El Misterio Galíndez' isn't as accurate as it seems. Nor is the Dominican Republic depicted as it really is. In fact, it shocked me to see that the filming location for Santo Domingo was actually Cuba. And incredibly enough, movies with Cuban themes (Havana, The lost City, Bitter Sugar, The Godfather part II) were actually filmed in Santo Domingo! So what happened here? Why did they shoot the movie in Cuba instead of the D.R.? The Spanish dialogs with the Cuban accent are horrible! Those are not Dominicans! On the historic level, Galíndez would have never been hanged. He might as well been shot, decapitated or died from the inhumane torture he'd been receiving. Then, thrown his body in the Caribbean sea. But Trujillo would have never ordered death by strangulation. His sick mind wouldn't have allowed it.

Acting isn't delivered as expected. Harvey Keitel looks like he's just expecting a paycheck. I prefer the leading actress in 'Deep Blue Sea'. The rest of the cast would have been excellent in some Cuban movie, and the same goes for the selected shooting location.

I suggest 'La fiesta del chivo' (The feast of the goat), from bestselling author Mario Vargas Llosa, directed by his cousin Luis Llosa. It's a bit more realistic with Dominican history. The Trujillo character is very well portrayed, and the Galindez incident is treated very briefly in this movie.


The Bothersome Man is a smart, surreal movie that makes you reevaluate what you're doing with your life and what makes you tick. When you see these people in zombie like trances doing everyday events and realize that's what we do and what we want in real life it really hits close to home. This is a surprisingly effective movie that at the end leaves you asking questions about your direction and not so much the movie.

Andreas is the main character whose life we get a 3rd person view of as he tries to adapt to a new life after being relocated. In the beginning he seems to be the most popular guy in town as everyone at work caters to him and he's invited to dinners etc. A good example of this is in the scene with his new boss who offers him an envelope of an unspecified amount of cash saying 'here's a little something to get you started'. Andreas even gets a girlfriend 20 minutes into the movie, which he eventually moves in with. This seems like an ideal living situation as his girlfriend is an established interior designer, attractive, and doesn't ever nag about anything he does. But Andreas is unfulfilled with their relationship as with everything else in this world. He then begins an affair with a coworker named Ingeborg who he eventually leaves Anne for and claims he is in love with. After telling Ingeborg how he feels she tells him that she is also seeing other coworkers and says all of the relationships are 'nice'. Soon after we see Andreas at a train station where he tries to end his misery and to the audience's disappointment doesn't come about. Still looking for salvation Andreas meets Hugo who has found a hole which music can be heard coming out of. So they embark on a mission to get to the other side, will it be better or will it be worse?

'The Bothersome Man' shows us society's obsession with appearances and its materialistic mindset. It does a great job making fun of us by filling homes with IKEA products that the characters spend each lunch picking out. I think he is mostly poking fun at the dull Scandinavian society and its high suicide rates. For example there is a scene in the movie where Andreas comes across a man who jumped out of a building and onto a spiked fence. Also, Andreas fed up with this world cuts his finger off and then later jumps in front of a train; this is one of the most weirdest/outrageous scenes I've seen. This world created by Lien is equivalent to purgatory where there is no punishment or reward. In this world drink after drink Andreas never got drunk, sex was unfulfilling, and no matter how many times he tried he couldn't kill himself. This movie reminded me of 'Fight Club' and how both main characters were kind of out of sync with the world around them. In 'Fight Club' Tyler Durden creates a second persona that does everything he wouldn't and in this movie the awakened Andreas is the equivalent to Tyler Durden. After a while he wakes up and tries to escape the bland life he is now apart of by escaping through a hole in a wall.

Lien does a great job with continuity in this movie meaning when a character has a half full cup in his hand and they cut away then come back they have the glass in the same hand and its not full or empty showing that the shot was done another day. Nowadays directors are more worried about the sound effects and overlook the little things like is that character wearing the bracelet on the same hand as yesterdays filming? Since I took TV Production for three years in high school it's hard for me not to look for continuity or voice overs which drive me nuts. Lien does the little things well he's got great lighting in each shot, never leaves you wondering why something is in a shot and brings about an interesting topic. This film really worked for me because it not only mocks Scandinavians' but the western society and what's wrong with it. The only real issue I had was with the man who commits suicide by jumping on a spiked fence. Because you eventually find out this world has no death but he laid motionless forcing you to assume he was dead and this never gets answered in my opinion.

Andreas is the only main character as others come and go and never do more than support his him. His first girlfriend Anne Britt is an interior designer who at the surface seems perfect for him but eventually turns out to be dull. This leads him to Ingeborg who he starts an affair with and falls in love with. He soon finds out that she was with a handful of other men and that what he felt was not real. Andreas eventually meets Hugo in the bathroom of a bar complaining about how nothing tastes good anymore and how he can't even get drunk anymore. He follows Hugo home to find the hole in the wall with that is filled with children's laughter and birds chirping.

Lien doesn't have a lot on the resume but 'The Bothersome Man' is more than a jump start to a great career but a preview of an up and coming director. If this is any indication of his talent and potential as a story teller, Lien has a bright future and we can only hope that his future movies don't take so long to make it overseas for our viewing pleasure. So take a seat and enjoy the ride as Director Jens Lien takes you from the comfort of your home to the dreamlike world that is 'The Bothersome Man'.


When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film.


While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own 'inner life'. I recommend this strongly


This could quite possibly be the worst movie ever made, up there in a league with movies like 'Howard the Duck,' 'Plan 9 From Outer Space,' and 'Ishtar.' I don't understand why I decided to see this movie, as it was a waste of my life. I also do not understand why one would like this movie, regardless of their sense of humor. The acting is among the worst I've ever seen, as is the writing. The characters are all stupid, and there is not one funny scene in the entire movie. Tom Arnold is quite possibly the worst actor ever-- this movie proves it. There is nothing worthy about this movie. Don't rent it, don't watch it, don't even say that it looks interesting. It's bad enough I saw it.


I really didn't have high expectations and I must admit that I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so terrible that I felt obligated to register an account here at IMDb just to warn others not to waste their time. The storyline is terrible and you keep asking yourself throughout the movie 'can it get any worse?' YES, it can! somehow they manage to make it worst by every minute and you end up thinking 'I want my 1 hour 35 minutes back!'. Somebody got to pay for this!

I dare you to find a movie which is worst that this...

I really didn't have high expectations and I must admit that I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so terrible that I felt obligated to register an account here at IMDb just to warn others not to waste their time. The storyline is terrible and you keep asking yourself throughout the movie 'can it get any worse?' YES, it can! somehow they manage to make it worst by every minute and you end up thinking 'I want my 1 hour 35 minutes back!'. Somebody got to pay for this!

I dare you to find a movie which is worst that this...


Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky.


I like all different types of movies, so this is not a bash on romantic movies from a guy who only likes The Matrix etc etc.

I just felt it was a lousy movie. I don't feel that there was enough buildup of the characters to fall in love. They were there for a few days and while dealing with a severe hurricane and major issues in each of their lives, Richard Gere and Diane Lane fall hopelessly and helplessly in love?? It isn't realistic. This movie didn't make me buy into it and feel it emotionally and that is something that you look for in a good plot. Some emotional connection. If someone can relate to them falling in love that quickly, without any true substance , than so be it. You are neither right or wrong. Different strokes for different folks.

Another very unbelievable component to the movie was Diane Lane's very rude teenage daughter becoming nice and sympathetic at the end of the movie. Does a teenage girl who is that miserable and aggravated at her mother for not getting back with her cheating husband going to just have a switch turn on and be nice? This movie, in a nutshell, had some big names, but to me, was a major disappointment.


..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience.

Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).

They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..

Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it.

Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on.

The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.


This movie is likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life -- surpassing the previous most god-awful movie, 'Spawn of Slithis,' which I saw when I was about 10.

Bad acting, stilted and ridiculous dialog, incomprehensible plot, mishmashed cut scenes, even the music was annoying. Did I leave anything out? Well, the special effects weren't bad -- but CGI does not a decent movie make.

I can't believe I actually spent money to see this movie. If anyone has the contact info for Hyung-rae Shim (the director), please forward it to my user name 'at gmail,' and I'll contact him to personally demand a refund.


I watched this in July and even with the Christmas theme, found it touching and sensitive. It is not for someone with a reality-mind as it is full of fantasy and lovely moments that sometimes don't make sense. William Russ did a grand job as Hank. I have only seen him in the remake of The Long, Hot Summer where he played a weak character. But in this one, the expression in his eyes throughout, as Hank considered the things that were happening to him, was wonderful and tender. Valerie Bertinelli was excellent and lovely as usual and very believable in this role. And Peter Falk as Max was splendid and always brought a smile when he appeared in a number of important scenes. There were many special scenes, including the one where Hank realizes who Max really was in his life. It's not for everyone.....especially those who aren't into 'feel-good' movies and this is definitely one! If you like everything to be perfect and make sense, avoid this one. But I think it is well-worth re-watching, which is why I taped it. (Yes, some of us still have VCRs. :)


It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis Armstrong from that film.

Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist Hoops and company in their goals to win the race.

Memorable scenes include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1 million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse, the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in. Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College.


The problem this film has is the same problem the TV series had and that`s the laddish Stan and Jack . There`s nothing wrong with laddish characters but Stan and Jack are played by actors who seem to be in their late 40s/ early 50s ! And there`s something objectionable - not to mention crediblity defying - as they cop off with girls young enough to be their daughters

As for the rest of HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES , I found it instantly forgettable . It`s basically a 30 minute episode spun out to 90 minutes with having all the action take place at a holiday camp instead of a bus station

Amazingly almost a third of voters on this site have given it a 10 ! Come on guys , this film doesn`t deserve more than a 5


I know, that's not what you expect from a film with this sort of

lineage- it's a direct descendant of The Best Years of Our Lives

and The Men... films dealing with men who are in the hospital

dealing with tragic circumstances. But this film is full of wonderful

surprises and performances. It features stellar performances from

Eric Stoltz and Helen Hunt (including a rather risque nude scene)

and Wesley Snipes and William Forsythe. As Emanuel Levy wrote

in his book Cinema of Outsiders (about the Independent film

movement) 'The Waterdance is coherant, attentive to detail, and

unsentimental with a wicked down to earth humor- it' s at once

funny and sad, and the entire cast is impressive.' I was

extraordinarily moved by this film, it's hard hitting yes, but also has

very tender moments and laugh out loud moments. A rare gem.


This movie was amusing at times, hell sometimes it was even downright funny.

The underlying message I got from the film though, was that women are responsible for all of the troubles of man. Every time a woman is depicted in the film, she is being lazy, being slutty or lambasting some poor guy for no apparent reason. I don't think the message involved is good for women or gay men.

But, it is a comedy, and a piece of art, so it is simply someones point of view. Even if I don't agree with it, they are still entitled to it.

An amusing film, but some of the comments others have made are just plain stupid. Best film ever my foot.


What kind I say about this movie. well for starters, I thought that this film was okay, not the greatest not worst. I said this cause I thought that the script was great and original, really different and refreshing. Now I wouldn't say that it's the greatest film that I've seeing cause of the acting. The actors that played each role, seems that they played them without emotions, as if they took the life out of them. When the wife laughed or cried, this didn't look real to me for some reason, that's just an example, but sincerely all the characters didn't act real at all. I wish I could say more positive things about this film so you guys can see it at least once but how can I do that since I know that I'm not going to see this movie again. I rented this film from the library of my school, without hearing anything about the film itself or the director. I took a chance because the story that was describe on the back sounded really interesting and it really was.


Batman and Superman. Iconic. The better part of a century old. Who doesn't know of these two? There must be countless of fans who would die to make a film about them. Sandy Collora went ahead and put together a trailer for such a film(which does not exist, and is not being created, much less by this team). Perhaps what this has most going for it is how polished it is. Throughout, the cinematography is solid. The editing is spot-on. The production values, even with the costumes looking more like their comic counterparts than the ones of the feature films featuring these character, are quite high. It looks quite 'Hollywood', this trailer. The physical types fit for, as far as I can tell, every single character. The lines are reasonably written. The shots are well-thought up, nicely achieved and fairly effective. However, this does have problems, and in spite of looking good, it doesn't quite match the energy and skill of Grayson(which only had the problem of teeter-tottering too much back and forth between a short and a trailer, as well as unbridled passion leading to the inclusion of too many characters and ideas). The acting is perhaps the most evident. It's... not good. Even some of those who only have one line and/or hardly appear on-screen at all manage to fail at delivering a good performance. The actors cast in the parts seem to have been chosen more for how much they look like the characters they're playing than their talent. Then there is the writing. Really, the plot, well, what minuscule amount there is(this and this character team up, something about some evil plot...) is fine. There is a problem in the characterization. While most characters seem to fit, Two-Face is, well, about as much as a cackling lunatic(which is quite simply, as far as I've understood, not what the character is) as he was in Batman Forever(and having your work on portraying any element of the Batman universe compared to Joel Schumacher's efforts can be considered the greatest insult to a fan). Also, putting that character in this is going to cause comparisons between this trailer and that film(honestly, Collora is practically *begging* for it with such a similar initial reveal) to be made, and, let's face it, this loses in every respect. Michael Antonik most definitely does not possess the screen presence that Tommy Lee Jones does, and the make-up(which, in aforementioned reveal, is essential) isn't as strong as that of the film(whether or not it was good in the film is another matter). The sad thing is that while Fiorella(John, who created Grayson) seems to be far more into the comics, and get them, the depth of them, better(not to mention possessing more of an ability to come up with compelling plot... Grayson had enough material for half a dozen feature films, or more), Collora seems to be the one with access to funds and the one who's more likely to have contacts(on account of having non-indie credits on his filmography) to actually have a shot at making an actual feature out of his trailer. I intend to watch other of Collora's work. But Fiorella is the one of the two whose work I will most definitely be most interested in. I recommend this to fans of the characters. 7/10


People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his 'Scary Cirus' was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years.


Before going any further, I have to admit that I only saw the first episode of this show. If I had the time, I might have considered watching it every week, if only to see how the season played out. However, it was very clear to me from the beginning that Martha Stewart's version of 'The Apprentice' just doesn't 'fit in.' Martha Stewart made a career of being a happy homemaker, a domestic diva of the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Julia Child. It was only since her scandalous legal troubles and subsequent incarceration that her public image began to reflect the true roughness of her character. Sure, she was compelling for a while, and this entire series poses the interesting question of what it means to be a woman in business. Does she have to come off as cold and tough? Shouldn't she?

But the truth was, by the time Stewart came out of prison, her attempts for a public comeback, though certainly warranted, were never going to seize viewers' interest for very long. Perhaps a true comeback would have worked had she returned home peacefully and waited a year or so after her often mocked ankle bracelet was removed. Instead, she frantically dove into overkill with 2 series at once, the other being her syndicated daytime series Martha, much like her old show, but more mainstream, with famous guests like Bette Midler. Of course, even at her peak Stewart was never mainstream, so it's too much to ask that American audiences immediately accept her foray into reality TV. Maybe America wants Stewart to make a comeback on her own rather than be the basis for it.

The show was basically a tired retread of Trump's 'Apprentice,' which still holds my interest, depending on the tasks, the cast, and Trump's firing decisions (often controversial - likely for that reason). The letter bit was certainly not cliché but obnoxious in the least. The fact that Stewart never says, 'You're fired!' - mentioned in the message board on this site - is particularly distressing. Producer Mark Burnett should be admired for dealing with Stewart's jail time honestly while trying to make her a hero, but the truth is that anyone watching can tell that she's basically trying to put on a show of being this nice businesswoman. Again never mainstream, Stewart lacks the agreeability and identifiability of Oprah Winfrey and the admirable, charismatic 'toughness' of Donald Trump. Yes, this can be a gender-biased assessment of her character, but I mean it to be more about the nature of her business.

It comes as no shock that Stewart has been fired, but I wonder if they really always intended it to only last for one season?


The Calu-what now? Yeah, I thought it was a stupid name as well. Chris Carter remains blissfully unaware of the scum in his writing staff. Starting off with the usual cheery X-Files teaser (a baby getting run over by a train) this episode... well I can't really say it goes downhill because to be honest it was never going uphill.

Poorly written, with us feeling no pathos for any of the characters (except maybe that baby at the start) the writer makes us hate characters before brutally killing them off, it's the worst technique ever. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the characters of hate them? Don't ask me.

Not only is it boring and un-scary, but it's like watching a really bad Omen sequel with overblown and disgusting death sequences and rotten special effects (although to be brutally honest, that's the least of my worries).

Sara B. Charno began her X-Files career with a whimper and thankfully ended it with one as well.

Verdict:

In the words of my maths teacher Mr. Laverack: 'Horrible, Awful...'


Sadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted / B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.


This movie is an incredible piece of work. It explores every nook and cranny of the human mind, focusing on the characters relationships with the people around them. Stellar performances all around. This one had me weeping for about half an hour straight. Spend some real time with this one.


J.J. Jameson (from Spiderman 2) Quote ... Crap, Crap, ...

Mega-Crap It pretends to be an homage (un/intentional) to the Coen Brothers ... done poorly.

There is no real mystery to the plot.

Diaz's performance is totally uninspired.

The quirky characters don't really work.

There are a lot of 'duh' moments.

I love black comedy, but this film isn't funny.

In my view, it wasn't worth the electricity.

There are many films in this genre which are much more entertaining.

I hope you find this review helpful.


Omen IV (1991) was a bad made-for-T.V. movie. Since the 80's were over, I guess the executives were experimenting in meth (the drug of choice during the 90's) because there is no other reason to explain this travesty. Why did they even bother making this? A t.v. movie? What were they mulling over when this one came up on the idea board? Did they even think for a second that this movie would catch on as. Perhaps they thought it could make it as a series? We'll never know. But I know one thing. This movie was the major reason why I never bought the Omen trilogy. They should have knocked off a couple of bucks instead of putting out this 'extra' disc.

Omen IV is basically a average American family remake of the first film. Instead of a snot nosed punk kid, we get the spooky girl who's a total brat to everyone around her. If the family had stronger parenting skills, then none of the demonic events that have transpired in the past films would have never occurred. These parents need to put their foot down and do some real discipline!

Not recommended, best to avoid at all cost!


I really wanted to like this movie. The previews looked marginally funny but I figured they put most of the funny stuff in the previews. In this case, they not only did that but they twisted the clips so that they appeared much funnier than they were in the real film. I like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Vince Vaughn, The Rock, Cedric the Entertainer, etc. so I wanted to like this movie but it just never seemed to do anything.

I saw Get Shorty and did not particularly care for it. Too slow and unfunny for me. This movie is certainly no better and, if anything, is worse. There were a lot of opportunities for some good comedic moments but it took none of them.

The acting was okay but even John Travolta seemed toned down. Cedric was okay but he was too reigned in to be really funny. Vince Vaughn and the Rock were pretty good and ready to be funny but they just let it all pass them by. I wish they had been given a chance to follow through with the funny things they set up but instead it just kept going back to the same old thing and back to just setting Vaughn and Rock up to be funny (though never allowed to really deliver that punchline or comedy).

Overall, this was a very disappointing movie and I am glad I only saw it on video. At least it was cheaper than the theater.


In 'Red Letters', Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with 'Red Letters'...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the time.


I first saw this film when i was around 6 or 7 years old and didn't really think it was anything particularly special. AS time went on i watched it a few more times and it started to grow on me as i started to understand the morals of the film, which i will come to later. For a while i left this film alone and didn't watch it for a while. When looking for an old classic film to watch a few weeks ago (now being 15), I dug out the VHS of homeward bound. After watching this i was left on a natural high that i couldn't really explain. The film gives an overwhelming sense of joy that you never really expect. The films nature of three completely different animals collaborating together to find their way home really sends a message home that no matter how different you are you can always find common ground, something that you all need. The way the personalities of the characters is chosen is truly fantastic. In that you have an old knowledgeable wise golden retriever, looking after or guiding 'chance' the fun loving if slightly clumsy young American bulldog, with sassy the clever, vulnerable but confident cat. The film follows these three friends or companions on a journey that is so realistically impossible it creates magic in that you start to believe that this journey can happen.

I don't want to sound like a soft tissue grabber when it comes to films i assure you i am quite the opposite, but the most uplifting part of this film is without a doubt shadows return, when shadow desperately tries to escape and chance and sassy, painfully are told by him to leave. When both animals return to their beloved owners there is a silence until shadow limps over the horizon to the awe of all. There is a fine line between heartwarming and corny rubbish but this film is pure magic even at the age of 15. This film may not be Lord of the rings but for Disney to produce such a fantastic film using animals and for it to uplift myself in the way it does even at this age it deserves 10/10.


This movie is very much like 'Flashdance', you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. 'G.I. Jane' is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than 'Flashdance'... (4/10)


It's the single unfunniest thing I ever watched. It's sad how he tries so hard to come up with a good joke and all he does is curse and thinks his disgusting vulgarity is funny. He is the most bitter person I ever saw. His whole act he is trying to show how much he doesn't care, and by that only showing how much he's angry at the critics and the people with any taste and sense of humor who'd rather go through immense torture than go watch his 'show'. There are good comedians, there are bad ones and there are horrible ones. But this guy is in a league of his own. I feel sorry for him and even more for the people who find him funny.


Nice combination of the giant monster and samurai genres. The giant monster Majin, god of the mountain, is an aloof and forbidding figure that comes across very much like the Old-Testament God, raining destruction and punishment on those who desecrate his holy ground - but it's interesting to note that what finally awakens him is not the suffering of the people but a pointed and personal insult. It's beautifully photographed, with solid acting, great miniatures, and a wonderful score by the great Akira Ifukube. Majin is not a 400+ foot monster like Godzilla - he's 2 1/2 times normal size, so the evil samurai he stomps into the ground get a good look into his contemptuous eyes as he bears down on their fortress and smashes it to smithereens. Not much in terms of extras, but it's nice to see this forgotten minor classic rescued and restored to the digital format.


From the start, you know this is a Sam Sherman film more than an Al Adamson film because as the credits roll, 'A Sam Sherman Production' appears in letters as big as the title credit. Not only that, Mr. Sherman co-wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use Bob Livingstone, a washed-up, 69 year old Western star of the old Hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that Sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of 'Swinging Stewardesses'.

Now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft-core exploitation feature? It defies explanation, but that is Sam Sherman for you. His obsession with old Hollywood colored a lot of his films for Independent International Pictures, and he and Al Adamson frequently tried to get has-been actors for their films (e.g. J. Carrol Naish, Russ Tamblyn, Lon Chaney Jr.,etc.). But Bob Livingstone? Tell me the drive-in demographic knew who this '40's second-rater was; it's ridiculous!

But then again, 'Naughty Stewardesses' was a successful picture for them, so we can't just write this off as a Sherman fiasco. Still, by any aesthetic standard, it's an incoherent mess. Al Adamson wanted out of this picture, and it is easy to see why. First off, it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass/simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of Steckler's 'Rat Pfink and Boo Boo'!) In between, we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around Vegas to the hackneyed music of Sparrow, or Richard Smedley and Connie Hoffmann on a photo shoot in San Francisco. Worst of all, we get Bob Livingstone as a Jack LaLanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy...gag! (Thankfully, his big sex scene with Connie Hoffmann was deleted, but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the DVD in the Special Features section. Creepy.)

This is a terrible, terrible movie, but I'll give it three stars for Gary Graver's photography and out of sympathy to Connie Hoffmann for having to make it with 'Wrinkles' Livingstone. 'Naughty Stewardesses' is for Al Adamson completists and/or scholars of exploitation film as Sam Sherman's commentary offers vital inside info. All others, BEWARE.


'De Dominee' is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it 'De Dominee' never would have been successful! I am sure of it!


This movie starts out with this creepy song that gave me some chills like the song used in 'Nightmare on Elmstreet'! It immediately sets the mood! The sequence that follows also shows what to expect! We are made aware that a ghost is present! The mystery concerning this ghost is what keeps this movie together! But the structure of the plot is so complex that it is difficult to make sense of it! The ideas behind the plot are quite interesting! Only the way it is told to us is far too abstract! I understand that the director believed that he had to maintain the mystery as long as possible! The problem is that when certain matters get revealed you never get a satisfying explanation! The motives of the important characters are left out and some questions raised in the movie don't get answered at all! Since we don't learn enough about the characters it becomes hard to care for them! And as a consequence you will loose interest! Only some scares and a twist save this movie from becoming a total failure! The twist is interesting but no real shocker! The experienced viewer will see it coming! Some reviewers complain that this movie is too much like 'Ringu' and is not original at all! Well it is true that some of the effects and scares are borrowed from that movie! But there is a main difference! The suspense in 'Ringu' mainly was based on this one twist where the viewer finds out how the characters get killed!! In 'Ryeong' (the 'Ringu' like) twist is used as a creepy effect to accompany another crazy twist! 'Ryeong' heavily depends on a complex structured plot and twist that doesn't contain enough scares to hold your interest! Simply put: This isn't a scary movie!


If ever I was asked to remember a song from a film of yester years, then it would have to be 'Chalo Di Daar Chalo Chand Ke Paar Chalo' for its meaning, the way it is sung by Lata Mangeshkar and Mohd. Rafi, the lyrics by Kaif Bhopali and not to mention the cinema photography when the sailing boat goes out against the black background and the shining stars. The other would have to be 'Chalte Chalte.' Pakeezah was Meena Kumari's last film before she died and the amount of it time it took can be seen on the screen. In each of the the songs that are picturised, she looks young but after that she does not. But one actor who didn't change in his looks was the late Raj Kumar, who falls in love with her and especially her feet, after he accidentally goes into her train cabin and upon seeing them, he leaves a note describing how beautiful they are.

Conclusion: Pakeezah is a beautiful romantic story that, if at all possible should be viewed on large screen just for the sake of the cinema photography and songs. The movie stars the Meena kumari, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar and is directed by Kamal Amrohi.

Kamal Amrohi's grandson has now started to revive his grand father's studio by making a comedy movie.


This movie was a pleasant surprise for me. In all honesty, the previews looked horrible, up until the point where Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman appeared. So I rented it with reservation, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It had great acting, a few good plot twists, and, of course, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. It's definitely worth checking out.


I was not expecting a classic, but at least a funny film. There were only a few scenes that makes you laugh but nothing more. You don't scare it is full of American teen-slasher cliches and you can guess what will happen easily.

But it tells much about a senior student in a Turkish High-School. Pressure of Student Selection Exam (OSS) that 3-hour-exam determines which university you'll go and thinking about the exam when a ghost is after you is not exaggeration. The movie is bad. Don't waste your time to watch it.


I have yet to see a film with Nolte in it that I did not like. However, this being said, he's made a lot of films and I've seen just a few. In my minds eye I am keeping the images of his performance here and the one in 'The Thin Red Line'. Nolte has a a full range of acting talents. When it's necessary to shout he roars like a wounded lion. His best moments are the ones I treasure in actors: when he just emotes through facial, hand and body gestures, without saying anything. Having come to the conclusion that our present generation of actors, by and large, have no appreciation of what an actor can do without speaking, having no conscious appreciation of the mastery of Keaton and Chaplin, this generation of actors relies far too much on the mechanical wizardry of computers. Of course it is also just a sign of the times we live in. Had Chaplin lived in our times....who knows, he just might as well have become an aficionado of CGI tools.

I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.

Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.

So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.

The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.

I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.

Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part.


There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.

The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.

CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.

The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.

Just stay away of this.


The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.

The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as 'the wanderer.' Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.

The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the 'Northern eighteen styles kicks' along with some 'Southern five styles boxing.' Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.

Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's 'Shaft' style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.

Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.

Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.

Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10

Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): 'The Little Eagle Wing God Lance.'

Tan: 'Just a knickknack.'


This movie is over hyped!! I am sad to say that I manage to watch the first 15 minutes of this movie and anything beyond that, I will have to force myself real hard to sit down and watch the rest of the movie. It's totally stupid and very fake. The robot in the movie looks like a man wearing those steel suit and the acting is really bad especially the one playing the character Alien.He is totally annoying!! Don't waste your money watching this sequel to the popular Gen-X Cops. I'd rather sleep or spend my money on some other things rather than watching this movie. 1 out of 10. If possible,I'd give 0.


I don't understand what is hard hitting about this movie! I don't understand why high school kids should watch this! I don't understand why this should have made me think about anything in the slightest!

*Spoiler*

When the un-noticed girl is on her way to commit suicide, was I the only person cheering her on? The cliché'd classical music, long tracking shots, melancholy emotion of the film by that stage had me in reversal to what was intended. I would have only been happy if she walked into the room and the entire cast was in there with her holding scissors to slit their wrists up.

Why?

Cause I went to high school.... and frankly im sick to death of seeing movie after movie in Australia with teenagers in it being solely based on terrible clichés. I've been waiting ages for a younger person to write a movie that im able to relate to and this stereotype driven piece of emo garbage is what I got instead. It was like a dark version of heartbreak high that needed a predictable ending.

Why are all teenagers in Aussie dramas depressed or have really weird problems that just aren't plausibly told?

On the plus side, this was funnier then 'Blurred'. And I needed a good laugh.


That shall be a documentary? I saw it (which is forbidden in Germany) and I have to say, that it was the worst documentary I've ever seen. It is nothing but one big lie from the beginning to the end. Who can doubt after this trash that all Jews were supposed to be killed in the concentration camps?


My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.

There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.

This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.

It was just painful to sit through.

The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.

Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it


Actually I'm surprised there were so many comments about this movie. I saw it as part of a Slavic film festival at a major American University. But nobody in USA has heard of it, which is a real shame! The dynamics between the people are what makes it both funny and sad. They are stuck together on a long bus trip--someplace most of us have been!! But I never had one like this!!

My favorite scene is the one where they stop for the funeral. Then the man & woman sneak off for some Lovemaking in the forest but everybody follows them to watch without them knowing! Just as she raises her skirt and he enters her all the way--the consumptive starts hacking & they realize everybody is watching!! Talk about surprised! But...you really have to feel for them even if it is hilariously funny! When you see the ending it is sort of ironic that they enjoyed themselves while they did! Serb humor at it's best!


I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling 'What the hell is going on?' and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!


There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.

At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.

Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?

There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.

My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.

Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!


This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen 'B' movies before but the 'C' movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into 'Knights.' High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.


This is a remake of the anime classic from the 80's, and this one is even better. Sylia, Nene, Linna, and Priss are all back as the Knight Sabers in their hard-suits battling the robotic boomers. The animation is crisp, the characters are well-developed, and the action rocks. Priss is a singer in her regular job, so the series features some wonderful songs as well. There is a fair amount of violence, but most of it is against robots, and there is some fan service, but nothing too racy. The DVDs also have many extras, including commentaries, which really enhance your understanding and enjoyment of the show. A must-have for any anime fan.

Also recommended: Burst Angel, Armitage III


The Internet Database lists this as a TV show. And yes, it was a series on MTV shown on the 'Oddities' program, after 'The Head' and before 'Aeon Flux' if I recall correctly. But the version I watched this time was a VHS tape with all the episodes run together into a film without annoying credits in between or having to wait a week for the next fifteen minutes.

You have the story of the Maxx, Julie Winters, Sarah and Mr. Gone. The Maxx is a super-hero or a bum, Julie a social worker or a leopard queen, Sarah a girl who should listen to less of The Smiths and Mr. Gone a guy who can't seem to keep his head on. And then there's the other weird creatures...

I use 'or' with Maxx and Julie, because part of the fun is trying to figure out which parts of the story are real and which are dreams. Maybe they're all real or dreams. Maybe one of the characters doesn't exist. Maybe only one exists and dreams of the others. You'll have to wait and find out.

I had the comic books before the show came out, and it was one of my favorites. The artwork was spectacular and the story was original -- unlike anything you'll find in Superman or Batman. It will bend your mind, and has strong adult overtones without being obscene or offensive. And the show used basically the same exact artwork (only now it moves) and the same story... guaranteeing that the beauty intrinsically found in the comic would be faithfully reproduced. This was the best show to appear on 'Oddities', hands down.

If you like comics of a darker nature or need a good mind trip, this is a show to check out. It's 'Donnie Darko' before there was ever such a thing.

The most astonishing thing is that this never went on to become another movie or television series, but I don't say this in disappointment. By keeping it simple, they have sealed this movie in gold and kept it free from the blemishes brought on by successive failures.


I suspect there are several cuts of this doco doing the rounds. The copy I saw focused heavily on Joe's erotic films and referred to his horror output in passing. There are numerous X-rated films presented in their X-rated glory and EMMANUELLE IN AMERICA'S legendary 'snuff' footage (the breasts being cut off) is given generous screen time.

The interviews with the highly likable Joe are informative and candid. He is an unassuming, articulate gent and discusses his interest in shocking audiences, why he wanted to mix erotica with horror, and how he may have been responsible for one of his performers turning gay.

His friendship and working relationship with Indonesian beauty Laura Gemser is touched on, as is his indifferent attitude to shooting hardcore.

Joe D'Amato personifies an incredible period in Continental cinema that has now passed. It is great to see a documentary dedicated to him and his fine, unique work.

RIP, Joe.


My first opinions on this movie were of course bad.I was expecting a horrible, crappy acting, bad entertainment, ridiculous special effects movie.What I got was actually not that bad.The special effects were absolutely horrible, but I found the movie itself quite interesting, and the script was actually pretty good and decent.The acting wasn't THAT bad, and overall I had fun watching this movie.It's still a pretty bad film, but it's not completely worthless like I thought it was going to be, and I'm pleased to know that this movie managed to wow me, even when it wasn't that good.Overall, it's a film that should be avoided, but to me it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be.


William Petersen (that C.S.I guy) has a small uncredited role but it's the best part of the movie. His character comes across smart ass and tough, and it's a fun surprise to see him in this. He has a range that allows him to play just about anything. After his 5 minutes, it goes from looking cool to just nothing much. It leaves you hoping that his character will reappear in the movie but after 20 minutes you give up hope. The movie itself is pretty poor. Worth a watch on TMN or a pick up at the library but not much more. Too much of it reminds you of L.A Confidential except that where that movie starts to get complicated upon itself, this one is so loose, it steers everywhere but where it should. 2 out of 5 stars