'Spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. But sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty? Nobody should love that.' - Lucius Shepard

'The Color Purple' takes place in the Deep South during the early 1900s, and tells the story of Celie and Nettie, two African American sisters. The film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers, an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. This motif  innocence interrupted by men  permeates the entire film.

The film then launches into a series of short sequences. Celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather, gives birth in a dirty barn, has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named Albert Johnson, a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly, forcing her to cook, clean and look after his children.

All these horrific scenes are given little screen time, and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie-dust cinematography, a meddlesome symphonic score, incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. The cumulative effect is like the merging of a Disney cartoon and a rape movie, a jarring aesthetic which caused Stanley Kubrick to remark that 'The Color Purple' made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. Ten minutes? He lasted a long time.

The film is often said to deal which 'racism', 'sexism' and 'black culture', but this is not true. Alice Walker, the author of the novel upon which the film is based, claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. Her book is a lesbian fantasy, a story of female liberation and self-discovery, which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. For Walker, the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia, black sisterhood and female independence celebrated.

Spielberg's film, however, re-frames Walker's story through the lens of comforting American mythologies. This is a film in which the salvific power of Christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. A film in which Albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations, moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. A film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows, the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins), stereotypical fat mammies, jazz bands and gospel choirs.

This is a film in which black people are naturally childlike, readily and happily accepting their social conditions. A film in which black people are over-sexed, carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. A film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (Albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. This is not the Old South, this is the Old South as derived from 'Gone With The Wind', MGM Muscals, 'Song of the South', Warner Cartoons, 'Halleluha!' and banned Disney movies. In other words, it's the South as seen by a child raised on 50s TV. It's all so cartoonish, so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes, that black novelist Ishmael Reed famously likened it to a Nazi conspiracy.

Of course, in typical Spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. This reconciliation was in Walker's novel, but Spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin.

Beyond Walker's hate letter to black men and Spielberg's bizarre caricaturing of black life, we are shown nothing of the black community. We have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. Instead, Spielberg's camera jumps about, desperately fighting for our attention (one of Celie's kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a 'Home Alone' movie), every emotion over played, the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. Couple this with Quincy Jones' ridiculously 'white' music, and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history: an angry feminist tract filmed by a white Jew in the style of Disney and Griffith, scored by a black man trying to emulate John Williams.

Problematic too is the lack of white characters. Consider this: the men in this film aren't portrayed as being rough to each other, nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. No, they are cruel by nature. And the women, whether quietly suffering like Celie or rebellious and tough like her sister, persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. A better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed, rather, it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse, that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that African American domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors, women unable to support themselves and their children alone.

And so there's a hidden ideology at work here. Late in the film one character tells another that since he didn't respect his wife, she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. The implication is that blacks need to return to their African roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie- Respect one another in your poor minority community and you won't run afoul of the dominant white culture.

3/10 - A failure to confront sex and lesbianism, inappropriate musical numbers, countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz, incongruous comic business, emphatic music cues, and wildly hyped emotionality, all contribute to rendering 'The Color Purple' worthless.


If this is someone's 'favorite' movie, they need some serious help. There is nothing funny or clever about this crapfest. I haven't seen the original movie this is the remake of (some 1950s film), but it simply has to be better than this newer bastardization.

A major gets kicked out of the military for being a fringe element, and winds up teaching children at an ROTC school. Unfortunately, the major is Daman Wayans... so the children are in for a world of annoying, humorless asininity. Can Wayans whip these losers into shape? Can they get him to become a little more human? The film bombs as most Wayans films do, with only a few sparkling moments. William Hickey gets about one minute of screen time, fair too little. This charming old man (known best to me as a 'Tales from the Crypt' actor, known best to you as Uncle Louis from 'Christmas Vacation') shines every moment he's on screen, which isn't much here.

Bam Bam Bigelow also makes an appearance as a biker, which fits him perfectly. I wouldn't mind slightly more Bam Bam, but I think he carried the role of 'biker' about as far as it could be carried for a military film.

And then there's the attractive teacher, who someone falls for Major Payne even though he treats the kids poorly, has no social skills and is simply impossible to convert into someone you would want to spend time with. She must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. I'm not sure which (though it would seem 'stupid' since the movie makes it clear she gets out of the house often enough).

Wayans had one shining moment: a dance sequence where he performs a series of moves (including a very nice 'robot'), and with the help of music from 2 Live Crew. This scene was enjoyable but hardly made up for anything else that made this film dog spittle.

Seriously, avoid this film. If you want to see a film a bout a loser who helps loser kids become heroes, rent or buy 'Ernest Goes to Camp'. At least he's a lovable loser, and actually funny. Maybe if Major Payne had fought a badger I'd feel better, but he didn't. Forget Payne, forget Wayans... you can do so much better.


For many years, Samuel Goldwin tried to bring his friend Jascha Heifetz to the screen. One evening when Goldwyn and his wife Frances were having dinner with Heifetz and his wife, silent screen star Florence Vidor, Goldwyn proposed that Heifetz star in a movie. After some persuasion, Heifetz agreed, on the condition that his acting be kept to a minimum. And the movie, originally titled 'Music School' was born.

The story itself is rather stock: A streetwise boy (Gene Reynolds, who is best known as the producer of 'M*A*S*H'), runs away from home and ends up at a financially troubled music school run by Professor Lawson (Walter Brennan). While attempting to raise funds for the school, the boy and some other kids happen across Heifetz at Carnegie Hall. After much ado, Heifetz ends up appearing at the school concert and sponsoring the school.

The story, while predictable,is surprisingly well written, although the film contains several minor gaffes where different scenes were patched together, the most obvious being the young cellist who is sent out of the orchestra room on an errand and is seen sitting in the orchestra a few seconds later.

What is not surprising is how good the acting is. As was customary for studios then, the studio surrounded the inexperienced star with veteran talent: Brennan, Joel McCrea, Andrea Leeds, Porter Hall, Marjorie Main (later of Ma and Pa Kettle fame), Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, and a Who's Who of character actors. Actress Diana Lynn and singer/actress Kaye Connor made their (uncredited) debuts in this film, as did longtime Nelson Eddy singing partner Gale Sherwood (as Jacqueline Nash). Child veteran actors Reynolds, Walter Tetley and Terry Kilburn also appear.

Goldwyn hired the Peter Meremblum Symphony, a highly regarded youth orchestra from the Los Angeles Area, to appear in the film. Most of the kids in the orchestra weren't actors, but they were excellent musicians, as good as professionals (which many of them later became). Many of the kids in the orchestra went on to noteworthy careers: Kaye Connor and Diana Lynn both starred in the theater and movies, Richard Berres was a producer and director, Mitchell Lurie founded a well-known music supply company, Elliott Rapaport went on to be a prominent cardiologist, Lewis Elias was a band leader, Thomas Facey a conductor with different symphonies, Channing Robbins a prominent instructor at the Julliard School, his sister Joyce Robbins an instructor witn SUNY Stonybrook, and many of the kids in the orchestra pursued musical careers with major symphony orchestras.

While Heifetz's acting was kept to a minimum, his salary wasn't. He commanded $70,000 for seven weeks. When some scenes had to be re-shot at a later date, he got an additional $50,000 for another four weeks. What thankfully wasn't kept to a minimum was his musical output. Composer Alfred Neumann (who was once a Meremblum Orchestra conductor) handled the scoring. Heifetz performs the 'Introductionne and Rondo Capriccioso' by Camille Saint-Saens, his own arrangement of Manuel Ponce's 'Estrellita' (with an off-screen Teddy Saidenberg accompanying), Dinicu's devilishly difficult 'Hora Staccato' (from a Vitaphone recording, with Emanuel Bay at the piano), an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's 'Melody', an excerpt arranged for violin solo from Tchaikovsky's well-known 'Adante Cantabile' from his opus 11 string quartet (played during the opening credits at the beginning of the movie), and the final movement from Felix Mendelssohn-Barthody's E Minor Violin Concerto. During all of these performances, there are many closeups of Heifetz's performing, including some very close shots of his fingering and bowing, something that would be of value to violinists desiring to study his technique.

The Meremblum orchestra also shines here, performing the arias 'Caro Nome' by Verdi and 'Casta Diva' by Bellini, (both with Sherwood singing ), an arrangement of the overture from Rossini's 'Barber of Seville', a short excerpt from Mozart's 'Eine Kleine Nachtmusik', and the previously-mentioned Mendelssohn concerto (with Heifetz). Diana Lynn can be heard in the background of one scene, performing part of Chopin's Nocturne in B-flat Minor, and a five year old Mary Ruth performs Chopin's popular 'Minute' Waltz.

All in all, this is an excellent movie. AMC showed this regularly up until early 1992. I haven't seen it on television in recent years, but copies of it are not difficult to obtain. If you have the chance, I highly recommend that you view the movie.


Let me start out with saying I was VERY surprised with the production value of this movie. I managed to catch an early showing and I have to Say this is the BEST (if not only) Christian film to hit theaters since The Passion.

Don't let the PG-13 rating scare you off, the rating is appropriate because of the serious issues that are dealt with in this film (divorce, teen pregnancy, drug use, and suicide), but nothing in the film is gratuitous. This is definitely a movie that a Junior High youth group could see without upsetting (most) parents, and the message is wonderful. The best part is this is not a film FOR Christians, it is a Family film without the cheesy 7th Heaven feel.

The laughs are there, and several times in the theater everyone was laughing, the bits of humor were natural and didn't seem scripted or forced, and that made for good pacing in such a serious film. Teens and young adult, both religious and otherwise, will be able to identify with many if not all of the characters in the film, and I was surprised to see such issues dealt with in this kind of film. The plot is not in any way predictable, and by the end hits closer to home than many will admit. Christians, fortunately, are not shown as all mighty know it all's of 'The Word', but instead people just trying to understand life. Humans make mistakes and no one is perfect, not even in this film... not by a long shot.

The acting is top notch, the writing spot on, and you aren't hit over the head with all the preachy Christian rhetoric. This is a great film that will make you and your teens think, talk, and perhaps question their own morality (or lack thereof). If you want to see a quality family film in January check your local listings for this film, and you might learn something about yourself.

And I am a 25 year old male that just wanted to see a free movie.


Hello everyone, This is my first time posting and I just love the movie No child of mine and I could watch it over and over!! well I taped it a long time ago like a few years ago and I dropped it and broke it and I haven't seen it in a few years!! could any one please tell me when it will come on again!! I would really appreciate it alot!!You can email me if you want to cause that is my favorite movie of all including Empty Cradle to and if anyone knows when that comes on to PLEASE let me know,I would really appreciate it ALOT!!!


Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to 'Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys' sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, 'Head Of The Family' is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....

And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!


Cult purchasers are unquestionably familiar with the term 'video nasties'. This was a notorious British list containing all the films that could bring 'damage' to society if viewed by irresponsible audiences (dramatization). For gore buffs, this is an excellent checklist as it contains inhumanly cruel and disturbingly realist movies (Faces of Death, Cannibal Holocaust, Driller Killer) as well as outrageous and ultra-sick horror films (The Burning, Nightmare City, The Toolbox Murders). Keeping this in mind, it's quite unusual to see 'Night of the Bloody Apes' listed among the other 'nasties'. It sure is gorybut the blood and violence are so poorly presented I can't imagine anyone would be offended by it. And the silly plot (about a desperate doctor transplanting a gorilla's heart into the chest of his dying son) isn't exactly what you would call disturbingly real, neither. All that remains is a fairly amusing pulp-horror flick with awful acting and pointless sleaze. The man-ape make up effects are laughable and there's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere. Enjoyable only if you're in the right mood, in other words. The few sequences showing detailed matches of lady-wrestling (which one of the lead-actresses does for a living) are very cool.


This movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have.


Here's another entertaining Clint Eastwood action-suspense film. I am not a particularly fan of his but I have to hand to him: he knows how to make entertaining movies. This is one more example. It didn't hurt, either, to have John Malkovich as his co-star. Now there is an intense actor! In this story, Malkovich plays an assassin, and he is fascinating to watch, thanks to his different disguises and the terrific dialog he was given. He also has a interesting voice.

Rene Russo is fairly low-key (for her), but that's fine and Eastwood plays the usual loner-cop role, not appreciated by his superiors but showing them all up in the end. I guess he couldn't stop playing the 'Dirty Harry'-type figures, but he played them well.

There were some negatives this film, however, namely: credibility in parts as there were a couple of times, had this been real-life, the killer would have done away with Eastwood. The climatic scene, in particularly, had too many holes in it. There also were too many abuses of Lord's name in vain in here.

Overall, however, this is good, escapist fare.


If you like Madonna or not, this movie is hilarious!! I am a Madonna fan and did see this in the theater at the time of its release. However, over time it has not lost its silliness and pure fun. Sure there are some bad lines & cheesy acting but the whole film is just a screwball comedy with Madonna actually carrying the whole film with great bombast. She is cute,funny, and is the only comedic role of her movie career. Madonna usually just plays 'herself' in roles but watching her as Nikki Finn in this film, she really seems like somebody else for once. Of course the film is directed by James Foley (who filmed the dramatic and haunting 'At Close Range' with Sean Penn & Christopher Walken) and co-stars Griffin dunn ('After Hours') who is also brilliantly cast and has fun with the material. The story is nothing genius and don't expect some climatic ending but if you are ever in the mood to watch a fun, clean, 80's romp or if you are a Madonna fan than this is a MUST SEE. The Soundtrack is also very notable and contains 4 Madonna songs: the #1 hit 'Who's That Girl', the #2 hit 'Causing A Commotion' and the beautiful and one of her best ever ballads 'The Look of Love''(Top 10 Hit in the UK) and 'Can't Stop' a left over pop ditty from the 'True BLue' sessions the year before. It is only on VHS but will soon be available on DVD.


This movie is so great. Its set back in probably the 40's and Meg Ryan's character struggles to be known as 'smart.' Plus Tim Robbins is so cute in this movie. And everything about it has a magical feeling towards it. Everytime I watch it I feel happy. It's definitely a girl movie, and I'm a girl, so I like it. I also love the music. The violin is awesome. but besides that I think it's a cute story and everyone should watch it.


For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.

This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.

You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of 'The Great Escape,' which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in 'Gomer Pyle' and 'Hogan's Heros.' Then a second wave triggered by 'Catch 22' and 'MASH,' both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.

But before all that, there was the 'Phil Silvers Show,' about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from 'Mister Roberts.' A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom.

Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.

Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. 'Stripes' was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some 'Dirty Dozen.' And sexual adventure.

Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.


I rented 'New Best Friend' hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as 'Gossip' and 'The Curve'. Instead, 'New Best Friend' is much more like 'The In Crowd', in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. 'New Best Friend' is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.


This show will succeed because it appeals to all adults no matter where they are in their relationship. As a man married for 26 years, I empathize with Patrick Warburton's character: he loves his wife, but he assumes she knows that. I also enjoy his monotone delivery; never gets too excited or too low. A nice ensemble of characters. This will be a nice addition to the Monday night line-up.

I don't know how David Spade will be in his role. He is best enjoyed in small doses. He also seems a little old to still be trolling for women.

I enjoyed the pilot and I look forward to seeing how the series develops.


When the long running 'Happy Ever After' came to an end, its characters- 'Terry & June Fletcher' were revived for the longer running and more popular sequel- 'Terry & June', although their surnames were changed from Fletcher to Medford.

Terry has received a new job and as a result, he and June move to Purley where they end up in all manner of scrapes- unwanted guests dropping by to visit at an inconvenient moment, the boss inviting himself to dinner and Terry trying to chance his arm at D.I.Y but cocking it up each time. A fellow IMDb user branded this show as 'not clever' and 'never well written'. Fair enough, it wasn't clever, but that was the whole point. As for 'never well written'- some of the episodes were pretty substandard, I will admit, but overall I found it to be extremely well written, highly amusing and very well acted.

It was warm hearted slapstick, not dissimilar to the later B.B.C sitcom 'Keeping Up Appearances'. Eight different writers contributed to the nine series, giving the show plenty of scope. Terry Scott was a comic genius, as he well proved in productions such as 'Hugh & I', the 'Carry On' films and of course, here! June Whitfield likewise was a comedy legend in her own right.

I enjoy some modern shows- i.e 'Still Game', 'The Catherine Tate Show', 'Legit' and 'Empty'. I even enjoyed the 'alternative comedy'- 'Naked Video', 'The Young Ones' and 'The Comic Strip Presents' but I am more inclined to enjoy vintage comedy, such as this. Humour that you don't need to think about is excellent for when you are feeling down and want to lift yourself up. For the record, 'Terry & June' was wonderful stuff. Special note should be made of the catchy theme tune which caught the mood of the show tremendously well!


I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a 'masterpiece', I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort 'Road to Los Angeles' not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.

I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.

In a word: forgettable.


As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.

Fooey.

Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.

Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much.

Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, 'Maybe I'm wrong.'


The title overstates the content of this movie somewhat, which might lead to some unrealized expectations. Frankly speaking, there's very little 'panic in the streets' to be seen here. In fact, throughout the movie very few people actually know that there's a murderer on the loose who may well be spreading the plague to everyone and anyone he encounters. Having said that, what we do have here is a very well done story with a level of suspense that starts out reasonably high anyway (because, unlike the people 'in the streets', the viewer knows what's going on) and that director Elia Kazan builds very deliberately. As the plague-infected killer is sought, one of the more interesting sidebars I found was the developing relationship between Dr. Reed (Richard Widmark) and Police Captain Warren (Paul Douglas). At the beginning, the two really don't like each other, even though they have to work together. By the end, they've forged a real bond of respect for each other. Kazan did a good job with that.

Pretty much all the performances here were excellent. Widmark and Douglas were great, and I was quite taken with a very early look at Jack Palance playing what would become his typical 'heavy' role. I found very little to criticize here. Perhaps Barbara Bel Geddes came across as a little bit flat as Reed's wife Nancy, but her role wasn't really central to the story. All in all, an excellent piece of work. 9/10


I enjoyed this film and after it finished it still makes you think about it. I believe Jeremy Brett is brilliant in this role although his 'death' acting was a little over the top, but as its Jeremy Brett I didn't mind.

This is a good piece of drama and does follow Oscar Wildes novel very closely. If you enjoy this film then I recommend you also watch 'An Ideal Husband' with Jeremy Brett as Lord Goring.

This film gives a great insight into Oscar Wildes way of thinking.And while watching it the viewer is reminded of how in a way Dorian Grey is Lord Alfred 'bosie' Douglas and Basil Halward is Oscar Wilde.


This is a romantic comedy with the emphasis on comedy for a change. As usual the lovers--Sally Field as almost-over-the-hill soap opera queen, Celeste Talbert; and Kevin Kline as marginally employed and marginally talented actor, Jeffrey Anderson--are working at cross purposes, seemingly unaware that they are madly in love, etc. Owing a little to Bette Davis's Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950) and a whole lot to the slapstick theatrical tradition, Sally Field goes over the top towards hilarity as she malaprops her way to love and happiness. Kevin Kline, one of the more underrated leading men of recent years, is also very good and very winning as he manages to be handsome, vulnerable, egotistical and lovable all at the same time.

The misadventures center around Celeste's fear of losing her audience as she has entered her forties, and reach the crisis point with the arrival of her niece, aspiring actress Cori Craven (Elisabeth Shue) who turns out NOT to be her niece, with ensuing plot complications. Cori manages to get a small part in the soap opera as a homeless deaf mute before discovering her true relationship to Celeste (and to Jeffrey Anderson as well)--but never mind.

As a romantic counterpoint or foil to the leads are Robert Downey Jr. (soap opera director, David Barnes) and Cathy Moriarty (Montana and Nurse Nan). David Barnes is oh so hot for her, but she cares only about one thing: getting rid of Celeste so that she might shine more brightly on the set. To this end she gets Barnes to do all sorts of things to wreck Celeste's career, but through happenstance and/or a perverse logic, all his attempts go awry, much to the delight of the viewer.

Whoopie Goldberg plays Rose Schwartz, the show's chief writer and Celeste's alter-ego and confidant while Carrie Fisher has a modest part as the hard-as-nails producer of the show.

I thought this was funnier than the only other spoof of the soap opera world that I have seen (Young Doctors in Love 1982 which burlesqued TV's General Hospital and was pretty good). Soapdish is funnier with a daffy script and plenty of laugh-out-loud one-liners and terrific performances by Field, Kline and Downy, Jr. But see this for Sally Field who is outstanding.


This movie was yet another waste of time... Why oh why do I keep renting crap like this?... someone please tell me... *sigh* Oh well. back to the movie at hand: Cube Zero is probably worth it if you REALLY REALLY enjoyed the first movie, (like I did), and just want to check out what's up in the last (hopefully) movie scraped together just to keep some poor actors and screenwriters employed, then of course this is the movie for you. But if you are looking for a good movie with good acting and a fantastic plot... *evil grin* then this movie is definitely for you :-D.... OK I'm lying... At best this movie sucks. OK, I have to admit that certain elements to it was cool.. well.. coolish... and I laughed quite a few times, prolly at the wrong things, but nevertheless I was amused. :-) But all in all the few things that barely makes the 'ok' category isn't enough to make this movie worth it at all.. Unless you count 'Manos - Hand of Fate' one of the top ten movies EVER!


there should be a sub-genre in the Western called 'the Robert Mitchum Western'. Mitchum's brilliant, idiosyncratic, usually undervalued Westerns import his film noir persona to etch some compellingly dark character sketches, and bring an elegiac world-weariness more familiar from the films of Sam Peckinpah. 'Man with the gun' is one of his best. Directed by Orson Welles protege Richard Wilson, it is a stark, monochrome beauty, full of chilling silhouettes and terrifying outbursts of savage violence, as Mitchum comes to tame a town terrorised by a monopolist with a private army. Mitchum's regression from soft-spoken stranger to deranged murderer, with a host of dark emotions in between, is a marvel of expressive, physical acting.


Holes, originally a novel by Louis Sachar, was successfully transformed into an entertaining and well-made film. Starring Sigourney Weaver as the warden, Shia Labeouf as Stanley, and Khleo Thomas as Zero, the roles were very well casted, and the actors portrayed their roles well.

The film had inter-weaving storylines that all led up to the end. The main storyline is about Stanley Yelnats and his punishment of spending a year and a half at Camp Greenlake. The second storyline is about Sam and Kate Barlow. This plot deals with racism and it is the more deep storyline to the movie. The third is about Elya Yelnats and Madame Zeroni, which explains the 100-year curse on the Yelnats family. In my opinion, these storylines were weaved together very well.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, I think that you do not have to have read the book to understand the movie. The film is reasonably easy to understand.

The acting in the film was well done, especially Shia Labeouf (Stanley), Khleo Thomas (Zero), Sigourney Weaver (the warden), and Jon Voight (Mr. Sir). The other members of D-Tent, Jake Smith (Squid), Max Kasch (Zig-Zag), Miguel Castro (Magnet), Byron Cotton (Armpit), and Brenden Jefferson (X-Ray), enhanced the comic relief of the movie. However, the best parts were with Zero and Stanley, who made a great team together.

Although Holes is a Disney movie, it deals with some serious issues such as racism, shootings, and violence. The film's dramatization at some points is very well done.

I would suggest this movie to people of all ages, whether they have read the book or not. You shouldn't miss it.


Altered Species starts one Friday night in Los Angeles where Dr. Irwin (Guy Vieg) & his laboratory assistant Walter (Allen Lee Haff) are burning the midnight oil as they continue to try & perfect a revolutionary new drug called 'Rejenacyn'. As Walter tips the latest failed attempt down the sink the pipes leak the florescent green liquid into the basement where escaped lab rats begin to drink it... Five of Walter's friends, Alicia (Leah Rown in a very fetching outfit including some cool boots that she gets to stomp on a rat with), Gary (Richard Peterson), Burke (Derek Hofman), Frank (David Bradley) & Chelsea (Alexandra Townsend) decide that he has been working too hard & needs to get out so they plan to pick him up & party the night away. Back at the lab & the cleaner Douglas (Robert Broughton) has been attacked & killed by the now homicidal rats in the basement as Walter injects the latest batch of serum in a lab rat which breaks out of it's cage as it grows at an amazing rate. Walter's friends turn up but he can't leave while the rat is still missing so everyone helps him look for it. All six become potential rat food...

Also known as Rodentz Altered Species was co-edited & directed by Miles Feldman & has very little to recommend it. The script by producer Serge Rodnunsky is poor & coupled together with the general shoddiness of the production as a whole Altered Species really is lame. For a start the character's are dumb, annoying & clichéd. Then there's the unoriginal plot with the mad scientist, the monster he has created, the isolated location, the stranded human cast & the obligatory final showdown between hero & monster. It's all here somewhere. Altered Species moves along at a fair pace which is just about the best thing I can say about it & thankfully doesn't last that long. It's basically your average run-of-the-mill killer mutant rat film & not a particularly good one at that either.

Director Feldman films like a TV film & the whole thing is throughly bland & forgettable while some of the special effects & attack scenes leave a lot to be desired. For a start the CGI rats are awful, the attack sequences feature hand-held jerky camera movement & really quick edits to try & hide the fact that all the rats are just passively sitting there. At various points in Altered Species the rat cages need to shake because of the rats movement but you can clearly see all the rats just sitting there as someone shakes the cages off screen. The giant rat monster at the end looks pretty poor as it's just a guy in a dodgy suit. There are no scares, no tension or atmosphere & since when did basements contain bright neon lighting? There are one or two nice bits of gore here, someone has a nice big messy hole where their face used to be, there's a severed arm & decapitation, lots of rat bites, someone having their eyeball yanked out & a dead mutilated cat.

Technically Altered Species is sub standard throughout. It takes place within the confines of one building, has cheap looking CGI effects & low production values. The acting isn't up to much but it isn't too bad & a special mention to Leah Rowan as Alicia as she's a bit of a babe & makes Altered Species just that little bit nicer & easier to watch...

Altered Species isn't a particularly good film, in fact it's a pretty bad one but I suppose you could do worse. Not great but it might be worth a watch if your not too demanding & have nothing else to do.


On account of my unfortunately not being able to find them anywhere, I have not gotten to try any of the other entries in the series, although I certainly would not mind, and trust me, I have looked. For anyone who does not know, this is a point-and-click adventure title. That means that the mouse is what you use to interface with everything that you can do so with in this, though there is one particular case in this where that is inaccurate. I won't spoil it here, for anyone who haven't yet tried it. Nevertheless, regardless of how little experience you have with computers, you can sit right down and try this. There isn't even terribly many bits of this where you need to be fast or have swift reflexes. Heck, you can adjust the speed of the text(if you have it have subtitles on), and thus, of the talking in it, and it's not enormously awkward or forced when slow. Accessing your inventory is easy, as well as combining or using items. Clicking and holding down the button at anything you can affect gives three options for what to use with it(be it a person, a specific part of the surroundings or an object): Hand(push, pick up, open, etc.), eyes(examine, look through, etc.) and mouth(eat, converse, etc.). This all adds up to a welcoming, friendly environment, where you can approach the plentiful puzzles(the amount of them is varied, based on which of the two difficulty settings you try this on) at your own pace, and explore and take in the dozens of individual, creatively done characters and areas in this to your heart's content. The length of this will be determined by how much time you take to do such(you'll hear no blame from me, they're worth it), and your skill at figuring out the solutions. There are a few points in this where you get to decide if you want the harder way of completing that or not. This can be enjoyed by anyone, from any age. There's no material that isn't acceptable for children. This is one of the products that help prove that that very fact does not have to mean that it is intolerable for older audiences. The animation is quality work, smooth, everything moves as it should, and the 3rd dimension honestly isn't that sorely missed when trying this. The story-telling is well-done, and you're never unclear as to what is going on. There are numerous well-directed cut-scenes, kept in the same colorful, mostly bright 2D world as the rest, with well-done camera motion. 'Cartoony' is an appropriate word to describe this, and not only the visual style. It can be applied to all of this. The entire world of this is very similar to, but not quite the same as, ours, with a mix of past and present, inhabited by people and filled with things that we can sort of recognize or understand at least portions of, but the absurdity makes them funny. That would have to be one of the greatest strengths of this, right there: It's hilarious. A lot of that comes from the lines spoken(what is said as well as how it is), and those who dig British efforts with focus on verbal, the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the BlackAdder franchise will want to check this sucker out. However, there are several different types of jokes, including, but not limited to the following: Satire, cleverness, dark, spoofs, irony, gross-out comedy(not exactly my favorite aspect of this) and more. There's self-awareness, with the lead addressing you, personally, and, for example, explaining why he isn't going to do what you just asked him to. There are references to pop culture through a couple of decades. Almost all of it works, hardly any gags fall flat, and if you aren't in stitches during this, my best guess as to the reason would be that it's simply not compatible with your sense of humor... a situation that warrants no judgment, and if one suspects that could be the case, and wishes to find out, I suggest the demo version, where you, for free, can see if you care for the brand of play and/or laughter. The plot is well-written(nearly all of this is, really), develops nicely throughout and keeps your interest well. The audio is all excellent, crisp and well-done. The sound effects are spot-on. The music is well-composed with no exceptions. The voice acting is impeccable, with a celebrity or two. Armato is fantastic as Guybrush Threepwood(gotta love that name), whom you control. Boen is incredible as LeChuck, the deceased(and still threatening) zombie villain. The designs are immensely well-done, highly imaginative and all fit. In spite of the relatively limited disposition of our hero when it comes to pirate deeds, you do get to engage in some. Steer a ship, board that of others, and match blades in a rather unique, and marvelously thought up, way. The re-playability lies mainly in the choices, during dialog, etc. This is linear, with a tad freedom as far as the order goes, so the buccaneer sitting down with this, for at least the second time, has not got that large an amount of possibilities as far as being challenged by this goes, unless he or she has forgotten what to do in the meantime. Ah, nothing is perfect. Anyone who would care to delve into a thoroughly well-crafted and fascinating fictional universe, and crack up countless times should get a real kick out of this. The good kind, not the ones that hurt and potentially leave bruises. Don't forget, kids, do *not* eat books... that is just begging for a paper-cut. I would wager a guess that those who like the others would appreciate this one, too. And they're not the only ones who may get into this. I recommend this to, apart from members of aforementioned group, any fan of this genre of VGs, as well as anyone to whom this review appeals. 8/10


This work is a bold look into the mindset of men who find themselves in wheelchairs. This film never tries to tone it down, cotton candy-ize, or soft soap the angst, confusion, and pain of what these guys live with. That is its strength, I think.

But more so, the performances are fantastic, with well conceived and delivered dialog, which draws you in and makes you feel a part of the experience. The characters never attempt to block out the audience from knowing what's on their mind-what's in their hearts.

I found it plodding, but enjoyable.

It rates a 6.6/10 from...

the Fiend :.


There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and 'angry' facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.

Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called 'Honor,' but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.

Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.


It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.

Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then 'Aloha Oe' on the beach!

It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove.


I rented this film from Blockbust because of the Cover and Title! Sounded intriguing!! This movie suffered because of the writing, it needed more suspense. The 'monsters' needed more face time. We needed them to have some sort of special power and definitely more 'Oh Sh--' moments. The photography didn't bother me except for the scene where a re-breather blows up. There were too many close ups. But other than that the movie seemed to drag and the heroes didn't really work for their freedom. Overall, I would say everyone put in a lot of time even the writers. But this movie is definitely a below average rent.

There are definitely better picks. I would recommend Anacondas 1 or 2 over this pick.


This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.

Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2


I was just lucky I found this movie. I've been taking advantage of Walmart's $5.50 DVDs, because I watch a lot of movies (and very seldom watch television). I graduated from high school in 1968 - so I have family and many friends who served in Vietnam. This movie really illustrates the pain I've seen in my friends in dealing with what happened to them over there. I wish more people would see this movie - I think maybe more people could understand what happened to our Vietnam vets by watching these excellent actors in the portrayal of one family damaged by that war. The story felt realistic - it isn't mushy, but made me feel what they were going through. I think it helped that Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez were playing father and son - it made their relationship more believable,


I'll be quick to address the matters of the film here: It was a very engaging story about the destructive qualities about all-consuming passions; a young Italian woman who cannot emotionally connect with her jailed political-radical fiancé (due in part to her apolitical attitudes and freewheeling approach to life) finds solace and passion in a new young lover whom she embarks on an explicitly sexual relationship with. The anxieties, rage, tenderness and passions that swirl around in the atmosphere of the story equal the dispassionate quiet that seems to engulf the two leads. It lends the film an unsettling mood that permeates through all the political strife that is otherwise lost on the viewer (unless you have a deep knowledge of Italian politics during the 80's). I found the film compelling...what ruined it somewhat is a gratuitous oral sex scene that the actress performs on the male lead...it isn't simulated and leaves little to the imagination. There are other scenes of sex in the film, which I do feel were necessary because they outline the madness and loneliness that the characters live in. But the oral sex scene, I feel, derails the focus on the actual story. It was smooth sailing up until that point and once the infamous sex scene appears (which caused much hoopla back in its day), it's like hitting a roadblock. It's jarring and unnecessary and I am in the camp that believes that the film would not have been harmed any if the scene had been removed from it. And what's unfortunate is that this particular scene may deter people from watching this intriguing film, which I believe is worth a viewing because there is so much going on underneath the surface, emotions and further turmoils layered in the subtext.

Overall: Wonderful film hampered by a much not-needed sex scene.


I've never been compelled to write a review about anything, but seeing such bad reviews about such an innovative show made me say something. First, people just have to get over the fact that the voices are different. Once you watch an episode, it never really comes to mind ever again. The humor is original and while, yes, some jokes do carry over from the movie, they are delivered fresh. Some of it is even reminiscent of Shrek--self-referential humor. A lot of these jokes seem aimed at teens or original fans of the movie as much as tweens and younger. Patrick Warburton and Eartha Kitt are both hilarious as they reprise their roles as Kronk and Yzma and their Annie Award nominations were well-warranted.

This show takes some time to love, to really get in 'the groove' of things, so to speak. If you ignore the horrible theme song (which really shouldn't warrant that much in the way of how you judge a show since it's only 30 seconds of the overall product), this show is laugh-out-loud hilarity and doesn't lose any of the Emperor's New Groove spirit.


This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business.


Talk about a bore-snore. This 3rd rate biker film was putting me to sleep as soon as the opening credits came on the screen. The shame is that the cast included many fine actors, among them-George Kennedy, Karen Black, Leo Gordon, Richard Lynch, Lance Henriksen and William Forsythe.

A take off of the Western classic, High Noon, this is basically the story of a former U.S. army green beret (Henriksen) trying to get someone to help him rid a one-horse town of a gang of creepy bikers.

Everyone tries, but the script is on grade-school level. Sad to see academy award winner Kennedy in such a comedown from his out-standing performance in Cool Hand Luke.

If you have trouble sleeping at night, this would be a perfect movie video to rent..........you'll be sleeping in no time!


I saw this movie once, and I thought it was OK. Then my friends at work said 'Watch it again, it's better'. So I did. And to my surprise, it was WORSE on the second time! There's a word limit, so I'm going to get the ball rolling here.

-The bombing scenes were all so stupid. Why on earth would anyone WAIT to trigger the explosion??? -None of the characters here are even remotely likable. Not on the first time, not even the second.

-Oh, and last time I checked, a car does not explode from a single gun shot, nor can a fire THAT huge be put out with a tiny fire extinguisher... did the above 3/10 viewers actually watch the movie??? -The camera is so shaky, I can barely tell what is going on. That opening scene with the robot had my stomach off-put, the rest of the movie was not much better.

-The sniper scene. The McManus Brothers (from 'The Boondock Saints') would roll their eyes, it was so stupid. First off, why did the guy plant his gun where one person had gotten shot? Furthermore, why would he spend THAT much time cleaning the bullets, reloading, aiming and NOT get shot, when there was so much chaos going on around him? -SAS types RUNNING instead of staying and fighting back?????? Huh????? Are the soldiers... gay...??? I didn't mean to sound homophobic, but honestly, that scene was so ridiculous.

-Too long for its own good, yet too short for the amount of material crammed into it. Bigelow seems to think that the more action, the better. Looks like she is wrong- the movie is full of superfluous action scenes thrown in there to distract you from the lack of a central plot. I know Watchmen is longer at 163 minutes, but at least that movie didn't drag. This movie, on the other hand, does, and for it, feels longer.

The only good thing was Renner, who was satisfactory at best. But do yourself a favour, just skip this, and don't give into the hype.


Baby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.

Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.


I found it charming! Nobody else but Kiarostami can do so little and, yet, get so much. You might think I'm weird, but I was so charmed that I couldn't speak during the movie. While during other movies I comment a lot. The short movie made by him for Lumiere et Companie, the one with the eggs, that one is unbeatable in my heart, but this is wonderful, too. I liked it better than Ten. Kiarostami is, maybe, the best director in my opinion, because he can see things! He doesn't need to use a lot of stuff 'brought from home' to illustrate his images, he simply grabs a camera. Not many can do that.. Maybe I don't know to much about movies but I don't care about complicate stuff, all someone has to do is touch my soul. Kiarostami does.


Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.


Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like 'I want to *beep* you ' and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: 'Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?' All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.


For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.

Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it.

If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie.


this movie was incredibly stupid with meaning what so ever. i fell bad for all the actors and actresses that ruined there career to be in this stupid movie. the entire movie was based on how unrealistic they could make it, to make little like it which made it even stupider. even some of the names were unrealistic. the film is fun to watch which is why it had 2 out of 10 stars. this is probably the 3rd stupidest movie ever made. i got really made after i realized that it had mostly adult actors in it yet in was a kid movie. the most upsetting one was Danny Trejo a horror movie actor who is always dirty. the other actors were pretty much clean as far as i'm concerned.


Perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that every joke needs to be followed with an insult at the people in the crowd that aren't laughing. If there's anybody who's insecure, it's a comedian who won't shut up about his audience.

Then again, perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that he doesn't get off his free speech high horse. If you want to be funny, just make a joke, don't explain all the reasons why you're saving the American way with your failed attempts at generating laughter.

Hmm... actually... the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that it substitues meanspirited jabs at ethnicities for legitimate humor. Avoid this like the plague.


This is absolutely the worst trash I have ever seen. When I saw it in the theater (arghhh!), it took 15 full minutes before I realized that what I was seeing was the feature, not a sick joke!


As good as Schindler's List was, I found this movie much more powerful as it is a documentary and based on real life. It details the story of the Frank family, and Anne in particular. Although it is a bit slow moving at first (detailing their family life before the war); it becomes very powerful.

Due to some of the footage and photos of the camps, I would not recommend it for children but for adults, it illustrates the horror of the Holocaust through one young girl. Highly recommended.


A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself?

As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.


I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.

The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.


Foley's noir quality in this saturated and intense pulp film is seemingly 'perfectly' fit together. Shot by shot, edit by edit, the film unfolds itself around a disturbed boxer discovering his own purpose (or lack thereof). The other comments around perhaps indicate a lack of pulp interest, but I personally think this is a superbly put together cinematic piece!


Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the 'Zombie Indians' arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian.

This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.


Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.


After viewing this movie, lets say, around 8 times, the story line has never bored me. Each character has their own distinct personality and their own views of 'love'. This movie has timeless, almost realistic, love lessons. Filled with philosophies on love, a jazzy soundtrack, and great actors is why I would call it a classic.


There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.


This is easily one of the worst martial arts films I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The chant of viva Chiba, viva Chiba is heard at the title, soon you will be chanting to yourself stupid, stupid. The basic story is that the mafia is running drugs into Japan and one man vowels to stop them, of course that's our man Sonny Chiba. The Karate master offers up his service to anyone who can provide information on the drug lords. A woman comes forward and he becomes the bodyguard, but what are her true intentions? Let me say at this point who cares? Soon we are treated to or tortured by a series of poorly choreographed fights and a lame storyline that becomes more and more laughable at every moment. Sonny eventually wipes out the bad guys with his karate skills, end of story. Oh yeah the woman was corrupt too. Congratulations you may have just watched the funniest film ever.

As stated already this is one of the worst martial arts films I have ever seen. What makes it semi watchable is to see how badly made a film can be. Some have already mentioned the infamous American intro put into the film. That's probably the most entertaining part of the film and it's beyond funny. I would agree its worth watching just to see how lame the 70's karate scene was at the time. Watch as Aaron Banks leaves a guy hanging by his nuts then flips a fat student (bad editing) punching him in the throat. But everything is badly done in this film. Terrible unbelievable fights, fake I mean fake blood, bad acting, dubbing, wardrobe, and let's not forget the story. One man to take out an entire drug problem in a country? I bet. Fight after fight is laughable. This was the 70's when people still believed karate was effective in a fight, but Chiba brings it to new levels with some of the nonsense put out in this movie. Let's see he kicks a gun in half, kicks a guy so hard what looks like his dentures fall out and of course chopping the bottle scene, give me a break. Not to mention the fact that it's very hard to tell what happens in the fights because it's filmed so poorly. One part that was amusing was when he broke the guys arm through the door giving him a compound fracture. OK. As the action goes on we are treated to gobs of blood, really fake blood. Too say it looked poorly made is and understatement. The acting is totally non existent in this film. I don't expect much from a film of this caliber anyway as long as the action is good, but it wasn't and as expected the dubbing is extremely poor. Was it my imagination or did they dub the Asian go go dancer with a black accent? As expected from a 70's wardrobe you'll be in stitches laughing at some of the trends and nasty women put forth for the gratuitous nudity that comes with these flicks. Also why would the mafia be so obvious and all where black trench coats and hats all the time? Don't try and hide it now. The characters were stupid as well. The pimp club owner's one of whom is decked out in a Japanese pimp suit and the other who has a taste for bores head looks like fat hippie. Also one last thing that bothered me throughout the film was the awful music with some woman whaling. It was very annoying.

Overall this is a terrible film by both martial arts standards and good movie making. That doesn't mean that it's not entertaining. With a film made so poorly it's hard not to laugh through most of this film, if you can stomach it. This was an old favorite watch with my best friend. If it was purely bad I would give one star, but the laughs it delivers bumps it up. 4 out 10.


Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.

My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.

While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.

And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.

Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.

Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.

Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for.


If The Man in the White Suit had been done in America, can't you see either Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis trying on Alec Guinness's Sidney Stratton on for size?

This is one of the best of Alec Guinness's films and certainly one of the best that Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom ever turned out. It's so perfectly fits within the time frame of the new Labour government and the society it was trying to build. It's amazing how in times of crisis capital and labor can agree.

Alec Guinness this meek little schnook of a man is obsessed with the idea that he can invent clothing that will never need cleaning, that in fact repels all kinds of foreign matter the minute it touches the garment.

He's a persistent cuss and he does succeed. Of course the implications haven't really been thought through about the kind of impact clothing like that will have on society. In the end everyone is chasing him down like they would a fugitive, almost like Peter Lorre from M or Orson Welles in The Stranger or even Robert Newton in Oliver Twist.

It's the mark of a great comedy film that a potentially serious situation like that chase as described in some of the serious films I've mentioned can be played for laughs. Poor Guinness's suit is not only white and stain repellent, but it glows like a neon sign.

Other than Guinness the best performances are from Cecil Parker as yet another pompous oaf, Joan Greenwood as his siren daughter and Ernest Thesiger the biggest clothing manufacturer in the UK>

Come to think of it, did Paramount borrow that suit from Ealing and give it to John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever?


Steven Vasquez directed and co-wrote with James Townsend, the star, this strange little drama cum horror flick with evidently very good ideas and intentions: make a gay film that takes a different storyline than the usual fare and make a drama that wants to be judged on its merits as a thriller. So why doesn't it work? For starters the film loses direction from the opening frame and wanders rather aimlessly throughout the film, dead set on making a suspense thriller but getting sidetracked into satisfying an audience who wants to see nude encounters. Not that that is a bad thing: it can certainly enhance some films that have been Hollywood successes. The film also tries to talk about coming out experiences in young men and women, relationships, disturbed parenting, the club scene with all the wild antics that accompany such events - and murder. It is all a bit much to cram into a 96-minute film.

Devon (James Townsend) by all appearances is a successful kid with a kind girlfriend Jenna (Sarah Kelly) but he has an eye for boys and visits a bar where he meets Brian (Alex Wilson) who has been down the same path and can offer Devon assistance on every level. They bond, Devon comes out, and the mysteries begin: boys are missing in the neighborhood, Devon's stepfather psychologist Dr. Kirk Tyler (Dan Swett) is not at all what he appears to be and despite Devon's consoling mother Donna (Sonja Fisher) Devon is cast into the streets because of his new relationship. It seems Dr Tyler is in a dark business with hunky Detective Cunningham (Earl McDougle) who apparently is investigating the missing boys... Devon gathers his resources from his understanding girlfriend Jenna and her cronies and together the group unveils the dark doings of Dr. Tyler and his detective sidekick. And through it all Donna radiates warmth and understanding as the perfect mother of a gay boy, etc.

Some of the actors are pleasing to the eye (and there is very little the eye doesn't examine frequently!) but the degree of acting is at an all time low. The only thing that makes us forgive that (and in some cases it is just too poor to forgive) is the feeling of commitment on the part of everyone involved. Yes, this is a low budget movie and yes, the director needs time to learn his trade. But in the end there is something to be said for the involved people to try to take a gay film to a different level. Maybe their next one will be more polished. Grady Harp


Honestly I am not THAT impressed by it, it's not a bad movie, but it's not great one either. There's a story to tell, but it's told in a very incoherent way which kinds of makes it loose it's full meaning and ability to intrigue. This movie could of been made in another way with an outstanding result, the story is just so interesting yet somehow I'm not intrigued when watching it.

It definitely isn't an amateur movie, rather the opposite and some of the scenes are really emotional. The actors and actresses does quite a good job and so does the director but there's just something so unfinished by the whole movie that I cant quite put my finger on. Perhaps if you had gotten to know the characters abit more, all the 'messiness' of the movie could of been better clarified and put more 'action' throughout it cause as it was, it became abit slow from time to time.


OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was 'The Crocodile Hunter' TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!


11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.

The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.

Not recommended.


Uwe Boll has done the impossible: create a game adaptation that stays at least somewhat true to the game; he has turned a game full of antisocial and offensive content into a movie full of antisocial and offensive content. So, as an adaptation, it's a success.

Unfortunately, it's still Uwe Boll we are dealing with here, so don't expect the movie to be actually any good. while it does have it's moment, 'Postal' wears out his welcome very fast and becomes a pain to sit through.

At its core, Postal is a satire on the United States, as done by a twelve year old kid. Boll seems to think that offensiveness is linearly proportional to comedic value: the more offensive, the funnier, and the more exaggerated the funnier. This results in a movie that sets new levels of tastelessness while being extremely hit and miss. Yes, some gags do work but it seems to be pure luck. High points include the director satirizing himself, and people getting hit very violently by trucks and other vehicles. Low points include..well pretty much everything else.

After the initial surprise wears off, Postal simply becomes a bore to watch. Yes there is a good joke every and good point ten minutes, but everything else consists of hordes of annoying characters shooting and chasing each other all over the place for what seems to be an eternity.

This probably would have worked as a short movie, but it's just not enough content for something that lasts over 90 minutes (although it feels twice as long). There are nice ideas and nice tries, but they get hopelessly lost in endless and pointless action scenes and content that is offensive just for the sake of it 4/10


This is a great little movie, full of interesting characters and situations. While not in the same class as some of the better-known movies of its time, it is still extremely watchable and memorable. The scene where Zachary Scott, sitting on a bus, casually steals the airman pin from the lapel of a coat thrown over the seat next to him, is terrific. It defines his character beautifully -- a guy who's so low, he'll purloin something of inestimable value to a war veteran, to use as a prop in his various charades. He lies easily as the situation calls for, and captivates the women in the Fenchurch household with his irresistible charm and that killer smile.

I couldn't help wondering if this movie was made to capitalize on the success of Mildred Pierce. Scott and Bruce Bennett were teamed again, and Faye Emerson bears some resemblance to Joan Crawford, with her facial bone structure and large eyes. Also, the Mona Freeman character is not unlike the odious Veda in Mildred Pierce.

I agree with a previous comment that the ending to the movie was too pat, with the convenient tumble over a cliff for 'Ronnie Mason', Zachary Scott's character. Also, in one of the final scenes, we see bratty Mona Freeman reunited with the boyfriend she had previously scorned in favor of the older, smoother Zachary Scott. I think the script should've called for her to be chastened for her behavior and for her cruelty toward her sister, instead of treating it as just a typical adolescent episode. But these are minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable and well-made movie.


I guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.

I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.

Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.

Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.

No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.

I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes.


This was truly a deeply moving movie in every sense of the word. I myself was a Mormon missionary and I know first hand the wanting to complete my mission but at the same time hiding the fact that I was gay. Like the character Aaron, I was sent home for being found out and excommunicated, but being the only Mormon in a family of Catholics wasn't as big a shame as it was for the lead character. This movie really took me back to those days and helped me to realize, years later, how fortunate I was to have a family that accepted me and understood what I was going through. I found myself applauding the end of a movie when Aaron and Christian find each other again by shear chance at Lila's Restaurant. I was truly moved to tears. I highly recommend this movie to all who read this review and also declare it a must buy.


This is a great flick! It is funny for everyone, even adults. We got Jason Voorhees/Leatherface like killer in this, along with other wacky characters. Very funny flick, for children of all ages. Must of rented this every time we went to the video store! Buster and Babs make a good pair, and gotta love the duck. He is probably my favorite character! I was never big on the TV show but this movie just brings back so many great memories. Must see for families, fans of the show, or anyone! Enjoyable no matter how small or old you are! RENT IT NOW AT YOUR LOCAL VIDEO STORE!

P.S. NEEDS A DVD RELEASE!


Well to start off I was like, wow this is new, so when is the film starting, and out of this in between stuff. But it never ended. The film is just one big in between! And after 10 minutes of waiting for something to actually happen, apart from water splashing around, I just started getting angry! There is nothing in this documentry and nothing will be learned. Completely BORING and RUBBISH!


A £3.50 DVD can be a gamble and this was one that sort of paid off.

A decent Saturday Night type movie that entertains if you gloss over the obvious plot flaws. Special effects are a bit few and far between with some repetition (and why does London always look as if it's in the 60's ?)

If it had the budget of, say, Armageddon then I'm sure it would have performed better at the Box Office as the story is quite a good one.

Overall, Tycus is consigned to B movie history but if you see it for £3.50 then it's worth buying.


I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.

I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.

In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.

The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.


I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.

I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.

Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.

But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year.


I was really surprised with this movie. Going in to the sneak preview, knowing nothing about the movie except for the one trailer I'd seen, I thought it was going to be a Dude Where's My Car kind of crap fest. I was expecting bad sex jokes and farting and a pathetic lead character who will get laid in the end because that's just how movies work. Instead I got a smart, surprisingly original movie about a decent, average guy who just never had sex.

Yes, the film is chock full o' sex jokes and vulgarity and the occasional hey-look-a-nipple!, but it's done much in the spirit of Bad Santa rather than Sorority Boys. All the characters are people you probably know in real life, redeemable friends who are just trying to hook a brother up and live their lives.

I went in thinking this movie was going to be total crap, and I was very surprised. Yea, it's pretty over the top (c'mon, it's a movie about a 40 year old virgin!), but it's very smartly done.

In the end, you're really pulling for this guy to get laid, which says a lot about the movie because honestly, did you really care if Ashton Kutcher found his car or not?


Like for most women this movie is the ultimate chick-flick. With it's hot chemistry, sexy dance rountines and beaitiful songs, i mean timeless classic like (I've Had) The Time of My Life & the wonderful She's Like The Wind makes this movie. I adore Patrick Swayze in this movie and he shows he can sing and dance it's so hot. He sings 'She's Like The Wind' in the movie. The chemistry between Swayze and co-star Jennifer Grey is amazing. I love all the dancing and everything that goes with it. But saying this Dirty Dancing 2: - Havana Nights is also great but Patrick Swayze scenes makes this. I love the songs, dancing and everything about it but it isn't Dirty Dancing. Like I said it's an amazing chick flick. Please let there be a 3rd because I love to see what happens with Patrick's character Johnny. Jennifer character could have been more sexy but hey Patrick makes up for that if you know what I mean!!! Great movie and I'm so pleased Billy Zane didn't win the movie role. I heard whispers he was meant for the role but they found out he couldn't dance.