Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.

Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.

Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance.


If you've had drama in your life, either your own or by someone close to you, the stages of pain this woman (but, in my opinion, it could easily have been a man too)goes through are very very real. It is a movie about not being able to cope with your pain, about not knowing what to do to help yourself get through it. Obviously it then also is a movie about not knowing how to help someone close to you get through their pain. It is a movie that makes you realize that everyone is alone in their suffering. It is a movie that might push someone over the edge...which hardly sounds like a recommendation. I'm not sure I would recommend someone to go see this film, especially someone close, but for me...it is a movie that puts things into perspective, that shows real pain, and is therefore much relevant to being alive. It makes you realize that hey, you or the person close to you have lived through pain, that hey, all the things you worry about now are of so little importance


This film was very different form the previous films and I had to wonder, 'Where is Ralph Macchio?' he could have been involved in the plot somewhere as Myiagi's old friend who teaches Julie what he already knows, then Myiagi can come along and add some more! Macchio could've been the love interest for Julie in this film! Never mind!

On a serious level, I enjoyed this film because it involved teaching a teenage girl how to do Karate, and her feelings are very different to what Daniel's were. Julie is much more wild than Daniel was and needs taming, something which Myiagi finds very challenging; she's quite a troubled girl and a rude, obnoxious brat!

It was very satisfying to watch the transformation in Julie as she warms to Myiagi and gets to understand more about Karate and her life in general. We can all learn a thing or two from Myiagi's witticisms!


i loved this movie. you have to respect midgets that dressed up like tiny Martians. Sure the story may have been thin at times, but you can't take away from the way it was done. i used to watch this over and over again when i was 8. its a kids movie, and besides, it has some of the greatest quotes ever. Blanzee's 'Home on the Range' rendition is awesome.

very well done if you ask me, 8 of 10.


The Matador is a strange film. Its main character Julian, played with an unusual mix of charm and unbalance by Brosnan, is not your typical hero. Julian is a hit man who is experiencing a late mid-life crises. Having spent 22 years in the profession of cold blooded murder he now finds himself stressed out and desperately lonely. And so, after a chance meeting at a bar with Danny (Greg Kinnear), he latches on and begins a halting, awkward friendship. Danny, the quintessential nice guy, is dealing with some stuff in his own life and, truth be told, could use a friend as well. The two make an unexpected connection, and Danny sticks around to hear Julian's story, even after learning the 'unsavory' truth about Julian's work.

Matador approaches a subject not completely unheard of in cinema, the anti-hero assassin (films like 'Assassins' and 'Grosse Pointe Blank' come to mind). But Matador differs in several key ways. First of all, the killing and gore is implied but never really shown in any detail, meaning that if you are an action movie buff looking for an adrenaline rush this movie will probably disappoint you. And second, unlike most anti-hero films, Matador makes no attempt to show remorse and redemption from its main character. Julian's job is simply presented as an 'it is what it is' kind of thing. This is unusual, given that 99.99% of us would consider killing for money horrific. And yet this unorthodox approach is perhaps what makes the film feel authentic. Although we don't like to admit it, almost anything could become mundane after we did it long enough, maybe even murder. Did Julian's victims deserve to die? Who is paying to have people killed? Who knows. The movie never deals with these questions. The focus is on Julian and his stumbling shuffle into a genuine friendship. If you read about someone like Julian in the paper you would have a passing thought that people like him should be ripped out of society like a cancer, but forced to watch his life you are drawn in by his intense humanity. Sympathy for the devil, I guess.

Brosnan's take on Julian is well done and deeply unsettling. He doesn't completely divorce himself from his James Bond good looks and smooth charm, but rather just adds disturbing quirks into the mix. Weird or crude remarks in the middle polite conversations and sudden shifts from suave charm to childish tantrums and sad desperate pleas for acceptance. It keeps you guessing about his grasp on his sanity and how it will affect those around him. It's a bit like listening to a piano player that occasionally and unexpectedly hits a wrong note while he plays, but it works. The films only other major role, that of Danny, is not nearly as meaty. Kinnear turns in a solid if unspectacular performance as a regular Joe with a regular Joe life and problems.

The film doesn't really have any huge shocks or M Night Shyamalan twists, but I wasn't able to guess the ending and it felt satisfying. It doesn't have any deep philosophical or spiritual insights and yet it felt very human. And it didn't have any heart pounding car chases or gun battles and yet I thought the pacing was well done and I was never bored. Maybe the only real message here is about the human need to reach out and make connections with one another, and how those needs have no moral prerequisites. Even a murderer needs friends, and even good people can be friends with bad people. It's a comment on the strange, random world we live in. A good film; worth seeing.


I saw this film in the worst possible circumstance. I'd already missed 15 minutes when I woke up to it on an international flight between Sydney and Seoul. I didn't know what I was watching, I thought maybe it was a movie of the week, but quickly became riveted by the performance of the lead actress playing a young woman who's child had been kidnapped. The premise started taking twist and turns I didn't see coming and by the end credits I was scrambling through the the in-flight guide to figure out what I had just watched. Turns out I was belatedly discovering Do-yeon Jeon who'd won Best Actress at Cannes for the role. I don't know if Secret Sunshine is typical of Korean cinema but I'm off to the DVD store to discover more.


I don't know how this movie has received so many positive comments. One can call it 'artistic' and 'beautifully filmed', but those things don't make up for the empty plot that was filled with sexual innuendos. I wish I had not wasted my time to watch this movie. Rather than being biographical, it was a poor excuse for promoting strange and lewd behavior. It was just another Hollywood attempt to convince us that that kind of life is normal and OK. From the very beginning I asked my self what was the point of this movie,and I continued watching, hoping that it would change and was quite disappointed that it continued in the same vein. I am so glad I did not spend the money to see this in a theater!


A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?

The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.

No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.


I saw this film at the 3rd Adelaide International Film Festival at the Palace cinemas, and was totally switched onto it in the opening five minutes. Thanks goodness for a film that ignores all the rubbish we often see in Australian films that seem to revolve around a)race b)gender and c) class, in favour of er...dare I say....jolly good cinema. The producer, a shy, slightly eccentric chap called Alex Frayne introduced his film, made with a bunch of his mates near the town he spent much of his childhood. Apparently he's spent much of the last year traveling the world with the film, mostly in Europe. The world the film creates is both brilliant and arty, not least because of strange and disconcerting editing style, the Gothic characters, and the surreal sense of time and place that draws viewers into its nightmarish realm.

The producer returned for the Q + A after-wards. Someone asked him what his inspiration was - he replied 'South Australia.' Hear hear! Another asked him what a 'day in the life of alex' entailed. He replied that he drives an old Ute, that he has breakfast at the same table at the same restaurant that he's jolly well eaten at for the past 8 years! and that he plays piano which helps him to think. He doesn't drink booze and plays cricket once a week. Then the Q and A session ended abruptly because of the next film screening - so my thoughts are that for the next festival, they need to extend the after film sessions.


The Italian concept of 'sprezzatura' was the grace and nonchalance in social manners that led to success in love, as described in the 16th century manual 'The Courtier.' The film 'Hitch' is worth watching for the embodiment of the 'sprezzzatura' concept in the dynamic performance of Will Smith.

Smith plays the character of Alex 'Hitch' Hitchens, who is a professional dating consultant to those short on luck and confidence. The best scenes are when Hitch coaches the painfully shy and maladroit Albert in his quest to win the heart of a New York socialite and in Hitch's own attraction to Sara and a surprise for her when visiting Ellis Island. In these scenes, Smith is supported with good work from Kevin James and Eva Mendes. But this film is driven by the charm and winsome personality of Smith.

From start to finish, Smith rises above the average comic script to make 'Hitch' an eminently watchable and entertaining film. I do not believe there is another actor working today who is capable of delivering the charisma and the perfect timing with the comic moments like Will Smith in this film. And his secret is in the 'sprezzatura'!


The only reason I gave this movie a 2 and not a 1 was because for some reason I felt compelled to finish it out! Basically, I wanted to see if there were going to be any aliens, any UFO's, anything at all suggested by the title of the movie, the cover of the movie and the beginning of the movie! I was very disappointed to see religion being thrown into the mix the way that it was. This could have been used to the movie's advantage, but I felt, instead, that the movie was trying to send subliminal messages to me! Finally, how big was this cast's wardrobe!? I became so distracted by the number of different, and extremely bright, shirts each character had on in every new scene that I began to wonder if this movie wasn't really supposed to be classified under 'poor comedy'.

toe thumbs down!


I have only managed to see this classic for the first time a few weeks ago. Being made almost 30 years ago I thought the scary moments would be rather tame. Boy was I wrong. There are some great moments that sent shivers down my spine. Even the acting was great, Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic and Donald Pleasance was superb.

On the downside it can be rather slow to start but once it gets going there is no stopping it. It makes all the copycats, e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream look very tame. I can't really say it is Carpenter's best because I have not seen many of his, the only one I can remember of his is Starman (I think he made it). Halloween is the crowning achievement of the horror genre.


This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......

I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).

Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house?

I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR.


This movie is about the crew of a spaceship who crash land onto a strange bright planet with three suns. Among the passengers is convicted serial killer, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), and his nemesis, Johns (Cole Hauser). While the survivors of the wreck are getting their bearings, an eclipse of all three suns happens. Shortly afterwards, scary creatures begin to appear and start to pick off the crew members one by one. During the eclipse, Riddick comes into his own, as his eyeballs have been surgically shined, giving him night vision. The crew have to rely on him to try to get them to safety.

This is a very stylish film, with the colour of the sky changing scene by scene, giving it a very strange look. Vin Diesel is brilliant as Riddick, truly menacing but forced to help people who otherwise would only see him as a threat. There is also an underlying humour in his performance as well, which adds another dimension to the character. This is the sort of role that Vin excels in, the anti-hero, whos character is not as one-dimensional as first appears. I can imagine no-one else in this role, it could have been written specifically for him.

Roll on Chronicles of Riddick!


I gave this film an 10/10 with some reluctance as it's hard to praise something that so haunted and terrified me for years. The sheer menace on the woman in black's face is just pure horror and the accompanying music just worsens the dread.

I saw this when it was first on TV when I was 10 and it really did disturb me for years. I'm fascinated by the fact that so many other users have said this too. So many movie reviews go on about how disturbing or terrifying a film might be but you can believe all those who have posted on this board, this really is incredibly powerful stuff. I mean I really like horror films and generally find them quite funny more often than not, but this really is menacing and will probably disturb most people. I haven't seen it since I was 10 and I'm tempted to watch it again but fear I might have some sleepless nights. I can't quite put my finger on what it is exactly, but I think it's something to do with the fact that fear is the Woman's greatest weapon and that we, as viewers, are just as susceptible as we feel the fear so intensely. It's remarkable that other viewers' feelings are so unanimous.

I've also seen the stage play, which was an excellent production...but nothing can compare to this.


This move reminded my of Tales from the Crypt Keeper. It has the same sort of idea of people get what they deserve. I think that's always the them in a Crypt story. The same goes for the bad acting. Very bad acting. I enjoyed the movie knowing that most people didn't like it and I wasn't expecting much. Whenever I watch a stephen King movie I don't expect much because all his movies are awful compared to the genius of his novels. I have read The Shining and Carrie and they were great books. I love how Carrie played out like it was a true story and the whole book is a bunch of reports and theories and such. It was so good. But I noticed that both of the novels were nothing like the movies. The endings were very different then the movie versions. I assume from those two novels that all of his novels are changed greatly and the endings are always cheesy. I ending of Thinner is the worst. So Cheesy. I want to read the book to find out the real ending. I suggest everyone who intends to read stephen King's novels to watch his movies before hand so that you may compare. And that way you will be greatly satisfied in the book. I intend on doing so with all his novels that were made into movies. I'm sure if they were made into movies they were real good books... and the screenplay went terribly wrong.


To say Funky Forest: The First Contact is a bad movie is an understatement of incredible proportions. I can really get into a good art house film, even a surreal and twisted romp like El Topo, Naked Lunch, and Survive Style 5+, because those movies actually have something worth discussing when the credits roll.

FFFC attempts at every avenue to be this deep and intellectual, essentially there is no substance in this movie. This movie is badly done, the visuals in this movie are not inspiring, the dialog is worse, the musical numbers destroy this movie.. I chuckled for GUITAR BROTHERS, but that was immediately wiped out by something completely unnecessary, and irrelevant. It attempted to be deep and meaningful I think, but its just pretentious disoriented nonsense. Freshman film students without a camera could craft something more interesting.

Guitar Brothers and the stand up routines in between skits get 1 point each, everything else is just badly paced, pseudo-creative, heavy handed attempts at being AS good as films by other REAL directors like, Sogo Ishii, David Lynch, and Jodoworsky. Give me a break. I am convinced that people that rave about FFFC are doing so because they have no idea of what they saw, because it was nothing but mild pertinent statements here and there mixed with stupidity and blended until you puke on your own shoes.

This movie was an extreme disappointment, coming off the high that was Survive Style 5+, a film that actually has meaning, combined with excellent use of scenery, cinematography, catchy dialog, funny moments, good soundtrack, excellent performances, fantastic pacing and flow. FFFC features the exact opposite in every way, boring scenery (20 minutes staring at a bland beach at night? a completely white stage? Alien balls floating in white space? a dinky school hallway and then a... school hallway?), terrible cinematography, forgettable dialog, nothing funny or humorous, save the fact you just wasted your life for two hours, soundtrack?, amateurish performances, uneven, disjointed, and often flat out dragging pacing, zero flow whatsoever.

There are those that claim this is what makes FFFC a great movie, that it is so unconventional at every turn that its pure genius. This is simply a way to stroke your own ego it seems, because 'unpredictable' could be a good quality for a film if it wasn't coupled with 'boring', 'innane', and 'terrible'. Personally I have spoken with two people who admitted to me that FFFC was terrible when they left the theater, but overwhelming rave by art-house elitist made them watch the movie again and then come back to me with a... 'Hey it was pretty good I liked it'.

I'm going to put my foot down, this movie is slop, I don't care if Roger Ebert says this film is the best thing he's ever watched since he lost his own virginity. 'The Emperor's new cloak' I say... this movie is no way indicative of the other psychedelic/trippy films to come from Japan in the last 10 years. Taste of Tea, Party 7, and Kamikaze Girls are much better movies (even with a low budget), and none can honestly compare with Survive Style 5+. Watch FFFC only if your interested in making a pretentious pile of nothing on a shoestring budget.


I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!

There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.

I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by 'Reefer Madness.' That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach 'Christian' principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.

It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century!


Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.

Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.

All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.

I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately.


I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.

Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the 'erotic' scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.


This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.


As most of you, I've watch a lot of great movies; In between those we often either voluntarily or mistakenly also find those movies that are so pointless that we think of reasons as to why anyone would make it. This is exactly what I can say for Dead man's bounty....

The very least I can do is try to 'warn' some of you. If you enjoy being entertained by a motion picture because of the story, acting and intensity than you might want to chose something else. Now, it's not all bad.....In fact, if all you want is creative film editing, and unique angles along with original music ambient than you might think it's OK. As someone that values movie plots, acting and being entertained by a film, the truth is I thought this movie was so terrible beyond words. I could easily find a spot for it on my list of worst movies seen in a while.

As for having Val Kilmer in this, the truth is he was casted probably as a favor to the director; As a fan of some of Kilmer's films, I can't understand what his motive for this was. The movie seems part western part romance.........In the end, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that it simply is a rude waste of our time. In case you haven't seen this movie, my recommendation would be to avoid it completely.


Who could have thought a non-disabled actor could act so realistically and immensely powerfully as a disabled person in a film? Probably someone. But no-one, truly no-one, could ever compare their expectations with the amazingly emotive and powerful performance given by the two actors in this film.

Michael (Steven Robertson) lives in a home for disabled people. He has Cerebral Paulsy, and as shown to us right at the beginning, he has huge trouble communicating. So it truly is a lifeline when fellow disabled member Rory (James McAvoy) who can speak normally, understands him. Thus starts off a friendship that relies mainly on (ironically enough) communication.

In a hilarious scene, they manage to move out of the home into their own. After Rory had been rejected, good hearted Michael put forward an application to move into his own house. Rory, who already had a bad name with the 'judges', was to be his interpreter.

But troubles soon come about. They begin good-heartedly stalking a girl who they met in a pub a while back, wanting her to be their assistant to do the little things that matter. She at first is reluctant; she does not know these men, but seems they could be harmless; so strikes up another friendship, but not necessarily a good one...

As well as being poignant, however, this film really does rely on the actors. But that isn't a bad thing. For a non disabled actor, you see Rory, though he can communicate properly, frustrated at the way he's completely dependant on other people, and has no real life of his own. But the real star for me is Steven Robertson. He acts with such emotion, yearning to fit in and sadness/happiness, that really sees him win over the whole entire film.

Excellent.

Overall: 5 out of 5


The best thing you can say about this movie is that if you are a fan of Sonny Chiba, this movie gives you lots of him. Chiba makes speeches; Chiba poses; Chiba sneers; Chiba glares at the camera; Chiba punches and kicks the living sushi out of a whole bunch of bad guys; Chiba sits around on couches and chairs and looks thoughtful/pensive; Chiba drives his car...

I enjoy Chiba as an actor and a martial artist...but even for a Chiba fan, this movie may have a little too much Sonny Chiba. It's obviously something of a vanity vehicle for him. And no, I wouldn't put 'Street Fighter' in the same category, because in 'SF' he plays a ruthless, amoral anti-hero and he shares the camera with an intriguing cast of friends and foes. Here, he's front and center almost all the time, and he tries to be Batman, Captain America and Bruce Lee rolled into one. Toshiro Mifune and Chow Yun Fat couldn't pull this off for the length of an entire feature film, and Sonny just kind of wears out his welcome. At least he could have changed out of his suit once in a while.

The movie is further messed up by an entirely gratuitous and badly done introductory sequence (apparently tacked on to the front of the film for the American version) and a goofy cheer '('Viva!! Chiba!! Viva!! Chiba!!) that starts things on the wrong foot. There is some astoundingly amateurish and inappropriate dubbing - Sonny (or his usual English stand-in) apparently couldn't be bothered to do the vocals for the American version, so they got some poor dope with an entirely different and smoother voice and dialect that is quite jarring coming from the face we all know and love from 'Street Fighter'.

Even with all those flaws and the overexposure, this could still be a minor classic, but the camera work and the fight scenes are hopelessly cheesy. I'm willing to believe that Karate actually works if someone as amazing as Chiba's character is supposed to be does it, but the director and cameraman hedged their bets by chopping and editing fight scenes with a weed whacker so you can't really see what's going on most of the time. It's not all bad: there are some decent shots and compositions, and there's at least one memorable and nightmarish moment when the bad guys appear in the client's bedroom in a genuinely inventive way.

And as for the actual plot...forget it. For a 'bodyguard', Chiba's character is something of an idiot. The screenplay depends on his making mistakes and oversights that repeatedly place him (and his 'client') in perilous situations so he can fight his way out of them, and after 30 minutes, it strains even the most credulous judgment to think that this guy is supposed to be any good. (Also, If his character was really out to destroy the Japanese drug trade, he'd have taken his client by her neck 10 minutes into the screenplay and shaken her until her teeth chattered like a castanet until she spilled her little secrets...and a whole lot of pointless death and conflict would have been avoided.)

Still, as a whole this movie is a long way from the bottom of the barrel. It's still Sonny Chiba, and he's still fun to watch. I paid a buck to get this off the bargain DVD rack at a local mega mart, and I feel it was worth watching once.


My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, 'light' moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.

I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.


Flowers! If it's one thing you'll take away from this movie, it's gonna be the flowers. They feature so prominently and are used as plot devices, you'll become an expert in identifying with daisies and black tulips by the time the movie ends.

Set in Amsterdam, Daisy tells the frustrating love triangle story between 1 girl and the 2 men in her life. One a professional hit-man eking out a living, the other an Interpol agent. Featuring a Pan-Asian cast (Korean, Hong Kong) and crew (director Andrew Lau from Hong Kong, writer from Korea, and a Thai post production team), I could imagine the headaches in coordination.

Park Yi (Jung Woo-sung) is a hit-man who found a soft spot for painter Hye-young (played by the pretty Jeon Ji-hyun). It's love at first sight in the meadows of daisies, where her clumsiness caught his attention. However, being shy and ever mindful of the dangers of his professional career, he can only admire her from afar, do little (or perhaps big) things for her in an anonymous fashion, but the one that takes the cake is sending her potted daisies everyday without fail at 4:15pm. He becomes her guardian angel from afar, shielding her and keeping her safe from harm.

Hye-young is in love with this mysterious stranger. She is constantly waiting for him to appear, but I really wonder how difficult could that be given the almost punctual daisy delivery. Nonetheless, she's terribly moved, and touched by this sole act. However, as the stars would have it, interpol detective Jeong Woo (Lee Sung-jae) chances upon Hye-young at a town square during one of his undercover missions, and he too is captivated by her. In a similar fashion, because of his profession, he is doubtful if he should make the first move.

Which is where the audience would find it frustrating. The lady obviously would fall for the wrong guy (then again, it's the 'good' guy), Park Yi being infuriated by Jeong Woo's pursuit, but yet still refuses to step out and identify himself, and Jeong Woo being the opportunist in grabbing the free anonymous identity unwittingly. It's almost as if you wanna give everyone a slap to wake them all up.

That aside, it is precisely this tension that keeps you intrigued. And it is wickedly fun to watch the two male leads finding it tough to fall in love without jeopardizing their careers, or their loved one. But fret not action fans, there are enough cat-and-mouse revelations and unsaid camaraderie in the mould of Infernal Affairs, as well as ample gunfights, although I felt the ending could have been scripted tighter.

What rocks is the clever editing. Telling the story in a non-linear timeline (no worries, it ain't that bad, you'll still be able to follow the narrative) from the points of view of all the leads, keeping you in suspense, and culminating in a three way split screen showcasing all their emotions in a single converging event, which I thought was extremely well-done.

It's a beautiful film in terms of landscapes of lush meadows and busy city squares, with plenty of classical music to sooth the soul. As with romance movies, all the leads are eye candy - the girls will have a field day with the two handsome male leads, while the guys have to make do with a somewhat pudgy-faced (argh! OK lah, at certain angles) Jeon Ji-hyun.

If you're into a romance movie with an equal balance in the action/tension department, then Daisy would be your choice. If you prefer a more conventional weepy, then the other Korean movie making its debut here at the same time, You are My Sunshine, would be your alternative. And yes, I totally dig the ending scene, which I thought only the Koreans do it best? Kinda reminded me of the JSA one.


Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.


Japan 1918. The story of 16-year old Ryu begins with the death of her father. As it will be revealed later, both of her parents have died of tuberculosis. In this desperate situation Ryus aunt has arranged a marriage with a Japanese man in Hawai, whom they know only from its picture. By her arrival in Hawai ryu discovers that her new husband is much older as in the photograph ,and that he lives in very humble circumstances beside a sugar cane plantage were he works on. Ryu not used to the hard labour on the plantage and in despair over her situation in her new home thinks of running away. She soon discovers that she has nowhere to go. The friendship to Kana, a female co-worker of hers, gives her new hope and strength. This picture is based on real events between 1907 and the 1920s, when thousands of Asian woman were married off to men in America, whom they only knew from their picture. This not very well known picture is well written and acted. The location is breathtaking. This film also features Mifune Toshiro in his very last screen appearance as a Benshi (narrator of silent movies). This film gives some insight of Japanese culture here and across the ocean. A must see!


One can always tell if I'm enjoying a movie by the number of times I cross my legs, switch positions, make slight rustling noises, etc., etc. The lesser = the better. I moved so many times throughout this movie that I succeeded in knocking over my friends giant tub of popcorn and getting a huge thigh-strengthening workout.

Sobieski, a young actress who at some points in 'A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries' gave some promise for her thespian talents, played poorly in a poorly-written part. Depressing fact number one. Number two: Chris Klein was in it. Depressing fact number three: Chris Klein had lines. Number four: Chris Klein played a valedictorian. Woah. Dummies from rich families unite! Even worse, he actually tries to act, but only succeeds in sounding like a mentally disabled overactor in an increasingly sappy independent version of a Cecille B. DeMille film. Go back to humping your American Pies.

This movie was terrible in almost every sense, save Josh Hartnett's mildly endearing performance as LeeLee's stiffed boyfriend Jasper. Luckily, he refrains from trying to have too many 'moments,' unlike all the other characters. Of course, this is why he's much better than the rest and he actually shows some mettle here. If you like Josh or are thinking of casting a kid who knows a few things, he's your man.

Hartnett is a sharp actor, but the rest need no further lambasting.

2 out of 10 (for poor Hartnett in this terrible film)


Vincente Minelli movies are usually worth your time; Meet Me in St Louis, The Bad and the Beautiful. I awaited this movie with great interest. But what a disappointment.

Some Came Running is scene after scene of go-nowhere fatalism. Sinatra is a sad sack, returned from the war to find disappointing family relationships, a disappointing floozy hanging on him, living in disappointing digs as a gal persuades him to finish his disappointing writing project. The movie has a big dramatic finish in which a disappointing villain catches up with Sinatra and MacClane and something disappointing happens. The sequence is intended to be tension-filled but Minelli is no Hitchcock; he gets so distracted by pretty colors, he doesn't notice the scene is a wheezing cliché and the characters are so thinly-drawn and poorly developed we don't particularly care that they get shot. (especially MacClane) But that's the only real cinematography in the project. Otherwise we look at constipated characters standing around bars & living rooms getting on each others nerves for two hours. Hell IS other people, apparently.

There is nothing going on in this movie. The dilemma of soldiers returning to displacement and indifference after WW2 is handled more deftly in 'The Best Years of Our Lives.' And either of two Inge products, 'Splendor in the Grass' and 'Picnic' covers the desperation of being trapped in a dead-end town, with much more poignance.


I think that Pierre Léaud, or his character, to be precise, is really outlandish but with grace: I also remember the chess player, and of the girl who seems to be appearing by chance in his home, something really curious...the woman acting as the lawyer, is to me one of the most beautiful actresses ever seen on the screen...but I must admit that the plot is too inconsistent to be taken seriously....The character who plays as the lead theater actor is really nice, especially when he's annoyed by the new actor, the one in purple t-shirt...also, the scene where the bearded actor - who belongs to another company - directs the stage is really fascinating and relaxing, as it often happens with this movie - for example, when they drink tea, they just make you want to have a cup...


I think Via Satellite is one of the best New Zealand made movies around. I loved the way the movie delt with all the characters within the entire movie. It was brilliant, and a heartfelt movie.

A well made movie, one which I will always remember, and watch again.


I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight


If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.

Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.

The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent.


I wanted to see this movie because I liked 'Kavkazskij Plennik' ('Prisoner of the Mountains') and 'Brat' ('Brother') with Sergey Bodrov, Jr. and 'Vor' ('The Thief') with Vladimir Mashkov. Well, unlike the other movies, 'The Quickie' was a total waste of time. The story that makes little sense, very uneven acting (Lesley Ann Warren was especially bad), really awful dialogs, poor cinematography, what else could go wrong? I find it amusing that in practically every American-made movie, when the same-language-speaking foreigners (Russians in this case) are left alone, they prefer to communicate with each other mostly in broken English (and when they happen to speak Russian, for some reason translators feel obligated to add a lot of 'f**ks' in the sentences, which have no profanity, literal or non-literal). At the same time, native-English-speaking actors choose to speak in broken Russian. Why is that? Getting back to the story, most of the subplots of the movie (e.g. betting the house, inviting Latin American paramilitaries, etc) either make no sense or do nothing more than confusing the viewers. It is too bad that Bodrov, Mashkov, and Leigh (all good actors in my humble opinion) got themselves involved in this disaster.


WHEN I first saw this film, in London, in 1958, I was bowled over. I had never seen a film like this before. It had a strange, hypnotic effect, quite unlike the films that I had seen previously and it left a lasting impact.

I believe that Odile Versios & Marina Vlady are sisters, if not twins. Certainly the interaction is amazing in its power to influence the viewer.

If this has been converted to DVD - in Region 2 format - and in the original French language, I would love to hear about it & where it can be purchased.


It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.

It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.

So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.

I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.


I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of 'American Idol''s success. But this one I can live with.

Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do 'Survivor' style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as 'Last Comic Standing.' I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.

My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like 'Big Brother,' but now they've done away with that, thank God.

And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.


I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like 'My Girl'. 'My Girl' was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!


What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!


This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent, brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from watching it the first time.

Don't be put off by the fact that this film comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling performance as the stepmother.

While it has its scary moments, this is not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond!


As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.


I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.

Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we 'meet the family' for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.


This is a typical 'perfect crime' thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of 'Columbo' or 'murder she wrote'. The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.


This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!

It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one.


This is one of a very few movies with terrific acting, wonderful story line and worthwhile to watch. It is about changes in life. It is about how happiness can be found when one is true to oneself. It is about accepting oneself and others. It is about life challenges. It is about coming to term with reality. It is about courage. It is about love. Both actresses are very true to their role. The actresses had very good chemistry between one another in the movie. This is the key of the movie that made the movie. It is rare to see an independent film like this one. One could tell the hard work that the film crew had to have while producing this movie. I wish to see more movie from this producer/writer. See the movie, you will love it.


This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.

Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.

The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.

Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.

The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.

The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.

The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.

My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): '11 de Setembro' ('September 11')


In the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...

The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).

Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.

Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.

Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure.


Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the 'home video' type effect!

I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.


Talk about your classics! Ernie Fossilus (the Foss from here on out) came up with a cute and creative trailer totally spoofing Star Wars. This gem is so jammed packed with tributes and gags I laugh every time! Not only that, when Star Wars did a re-issue with new special effects, Hardware Wars did the same! Talk about a spoof that just won't die! There's a reason George Lucas calls this his favorite parody. He was so impressed, he even hired the Foss to work on 'Return of the Jedi' (Don't believe me, check his entry in IMDb!)

This has to be the first, and in my opinion, the best parody ever done. I think the Special Edition was a bit overdone, but on reflection, I think it's PERFECT for the modern day re-release of Star Wars, and goes to prove that sometimes, it's wrong to mess with perfection.

Yes, it's only 10 minutes, but it's well worth your time.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye! Well, maybe 15 for the DVD, but you'll be real happy you did.


This is one of those movies that you keep thinking about when you wake up the next morning. It will give you that warm, fuzzy feeling and leave you with a smile on your face.

Sure, we get fed the typical stereotype characters and stories, but it does do the trick: Entertain.

Being from Sweden and living in the US for quite sometime, it is funny how we react. 'The deadbeat husband is going to kill him', 'She (Gabriella) is going to die and then there will be a heartbreaking larger-than-life ending'. We know how these things work, everything comes together at the end. And it did. The characters were somewhat simple, they were so elaborate that you didn't really think twice about it, nothing was really left for your own imagination. The closest would probably be Siv, she makes you ask yourself if she indeed was in love with Daniel, but that's about it.

But the movie is beautiful, set in rural Norrland, the music is absolutely amazing and the characters are lovable. Michael Nyqvist is truly genius, with his crazy unique look and Frida Hallberg is charming and approachable. Maybe a little too nice.

But most of all this movie makes you feel, and that is the most important thing. You cry, you laugh, you hate and you identify. I don't know about you guys, but that does not happen that often.


If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.

It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.

It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides?

I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something?

Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.

Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it).


The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.

That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.

Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.


I'm an action movie fan but until today I've never seen a preview or an ad for this movie in Italy, so I went to see 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' on pay-TV hoping for nothing special.

But, what a surprise! This movie is great! The only problem I found is the presence of some holes in the plot, but the rest is the most entertaining, intriguing and funny action movie ever made.

The transformation of Samantha/Charly from ordinary wife-teacher to cool-blooded agent recovering from amnesia seems to be a good idea. The action scenes and the stunts are the best I've ever seen. Samuel L. Jackson adds some of the best lines I have ever heard and his chemistry with Geena Davis is good.

And what about Geena? She is wonderful, she plays the best action heroine ever seen and does strong, convincing acting and fantastic stunts.

So I think this movie had weak performances at box office and bad critics because most reviewers and some kind of public have a hard time with strong female lead roles.

9/10.


I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.

I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again 'It's true'.

I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.

Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.


This is a really heart-warming family movie. It has absolutely brilliant animal training and 'acting' (if you can call it like that) as well (just think about the dog in 'How the Grinch stole Christmas'... it was plain bad training). The Paulie story is extremely well done, well reproduced and in general the characters are really elaborated too. Not more to say except that this is a GREAT MOVIE!

My ratings: story 8.5/10, acting 7.5/10, animals+fx 8.5/10, cinematography 8/10.

My overall rating: 8/10 - BIG FAMILY MOVIE AND VERY WORTH WATCHING!


The cast of 'All That' returns for good humor in the 'Good Burger' a place similar to an old fashioned fast food restaurant. The comedy is terrific, the fun is non-stop, and though cliché, is a passer for kid and family comedy.

A movie for all ages, this movie is meant to enjoy, laugh, and pretty much a lazy movie for a rainy day, as that's what I'd save this movie for, a rainy day. USA aired it today, and since I know that the cast of 'All That' is in it, I thought that it might be a bit of a chuckle burner, but in good fun, as Keenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell (probably one of the best young duos of that time) were terrific together, the pieces came together, and everything worked out, and it made it into good family fun together with some lazy day work to get off the bad day.

May I take your order?


Anna (Charlotte Burke) develops a strange fever that causes her to pass out and drift off into a world of her own creation. A bleak world she drew with a sad little boy as the inhabitant of an old dumpy house in the middle of a lonely field. Lacking in detail, much like any child drawing the house and it's inhabitant Marc (who can't walk because Anna didn't draw him any legs) are inhabitants of this purgatory/limbo world. Anna begins visiting the boy and the house more frequently trying to figure what's what and in the process tries to help save the boy, but her fever is making it harder for her to wake up each time and may not only kill her, but trap her and Marc there forever.

Wow! Is a good word to sum up Bernard Rose's brilliantly haunting and poetic Paperhouse. A film that is so simple that it's damn near impossible to explain and impossible to forget. While you may find this puppy in your horror section it's anything but. It's more of a serious fantasy, expertly directed, and exceptionally well acted by it's cast, in particular Charlotte Burke and Elliot Speirs (Marc). And yet, it's not a children's movie either, but meant to make us remember those carefree days of old that are now just dark memories. Rose creates a rich tapestry of moody ambiance that creates a thrilling backdrop for the brilliant story and great actors to play with. Paperhouse stays away from trying to explain it's more dreamy qualities and leaves most things to the viewers imagination. There's much symbolism and ambiguity here to sink your teeth into. Paperhouse enjoys playing games with the viewers mind, engrossing you with it's very own sense of reasoning. As the story unfolded I was again and again impressed at just how powerful the film managed to be up to the finale which left me with a smile on my face and a tear in my eye.

Bernard Rose's visuals are brilliant here. He's able to create an unnervingly bleak atmosphere that appears simple on the surface, but as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. The acting is of young Charlotte Burke in this, her feature debut, is a truly impressing as well. Unfortunately she's not graced the screen since. A much deserved Burnout Central award only seems proper for that performance. Toward the end the movie lags a bit here and there, but I was easily able to overlook it. I wished they had took a darker turn creating a far more powerful finale that would have proved to be all the more unnerving and truly riveting in retrospect. The movie as is, is still one for the books and deserves to be seen by any serious film lover. It's a poetic ride told through the innocent eyes of a child, a powerful film in which much is left to be pondered and far more to be praised.


Well-made but basically dreary low-life melodrama which, according to the accompanying interview with lead Isabelle Huppert, writer/director Pialat infused with a good deal of autobiographical detail; given the mainly unsympathetic characters involved, it doesn't do him any compliments - and he does seem to have been a troubled man, as Huppert also says that Pialat often disappeared for days on end during the shoot!

The acting is uniformly excellent, however; despite their relatively young age, Huppert and co-star Gerard Depardieu (as the title character!) were already at the forefront of modern French stars - a status which, with varying degrees of success, they both still hold to this day.

I have 3 more of Pialat's films in my 'VHS To Watch' pile, albeit all in French without English Subtitles; due to this fact but also LOULOU'S oppressive realism - in spite of its undeniable artistic merit - I can't say that I'm in any particular hurry to check them out now...


Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.


Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.

Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.

Cliché after cliché three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.

John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.

The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.

I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.

But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects.


Neatly sandwiched between THE STRANGER, a small film noir picture that proved Welles can do a formidable genre work on budget and on time and ironically proved his biggest box office success in the forties, and MACBETH, a no-budget Shakespeare adaptation shot in old western shets in 23 days, comes THE LADY FROM SHANGAI, a dark film noir woven from the very same fabric of Wellesian mythos that covers THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN and any other film the director didn't manage to save from the clutches of studio bosses.

Six years after THE MALTESE FALCON, with the post-war craze of the film noir in full swing, Welles, always ahead of his time, a true visionary director of tremendous artistic integrity, envisioned a labyrinthine world of shadows that is already darker, more sinister, paranoid and serpentine than anything his contemporaries were doing at the time. It's no wonder the movie was so misunderstood at its time, to the point that one full hour of footage was forever left in the cutting room floor, and it was once again Europe that championed it as another Welles classic.

Certain set-pieces stand out. The aquarium scene with its flickering light and ominous shadows, and of course the Funhouse/Hall of Mirrors finale that is as classic a piece of Wellesian bravura as any in CITIZEN KANE or THE TRIAL. The only faults I find with the movie is Welles' ill-advised Irish accent and perhaps some of the erratic editing in the first act. The story however unfurls in a progressively mesmerizing manner, which the cuts only serve to intensify. I believe the heavily chopped versions of Shangai and Ambersons attain a surreal quality for that matter.

Welles would exile himself in Europe for ten years and return in 1958 to deliver yet another stonewall classic, the monumental TOUCH OF EVIL, perhaps the crowning jewel of the film noir that was already in its waning days by that time. Shangai was not the box office success a star vehicle for Hollywood's premiere star of the time, Rita Hayworth, ought to have been, and Welles marriage with Hayworth ended before the movie was even released. Sixty years later and one hour of footage less, Shangai is still one of the best film noir pictures one is likely to discover. Surely that must count for something.


Yes, it's flawed - especially if you're into Hollywood films that demand a lot of effects, a purely entertaining or fantasy story or plot, and you can't actually think for yourself.

Roeg's films are for the intelligent film-goer, and Insignificance is a perfect example.

The characterizations are brilliant, the story is excellent, but, like all Nic Roeg's films - it has you thinking on every level about aspects of reality that would never have dawned on you before. His films always make you think, and personally, I like that in a film.

So don't expect to come away from watching this film and feeling all happy-happy, because it's likely you'll be disappointed.

But I think it's excellent.


Criticism of the film EVENING, based on the novel by Susan Minot and adapted for the screen by Minot and Michael Cunningham, has been harsh, so harsh that it may have discouraged many viewers from giving the film a try. The primary criticism has centered on the fact that very little happens in this film about a dying woman's fretting over a mistake she made one summer in her youth, that famous actors were given very minor roles, that the entire production was over-hyped, etc. For this viewer, seeing the film on a DVD in the quiet of the home, a very different reaction occurred.

Ann Grant Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying in her home by the ocean and her medication and memories allow her to share a man's name - 'Harris' - with her two grown daughters Nina (Toni Colette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson). As her daughters sit at her bedside Ann relives a particular summer when she was a bridesmaid for her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) - a marriage both Ann (Claire Danes as the youthful Ann) and Lila's alcoholic brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) objected to, feeling that Lila was simply marrying a man of her class instead of the boy she had loved - Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), her housekeeper's son who had become a physician. Harris, Buddy, Lila, and Ann are woven together in a series of infatuations and romances that have been kept secret until now, 50 years later, as Ann is dying. The older Lila (Meryl Streep) visits Ann at the end and the secrets are revealed: 'there are no such things as mistakes - life just goes on.' The film is a delicate mood piece and the script by Minot and Cunningham is rich in atmosphere and subtle life lessons. Yes, there are gaps in the story that could have used more explanation, but in order to maintain the aura of nostalgia of a dying lady's words, such 'holes' are understandable. The film is graced by the presence of not only Redgrave, Richardson (Redgrave's true daughter), Collette, Gummer (Streep's true daughter), Meryl Streep, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, Hugh Dancy and Patrick Wilson, but also with an ensemble cast of brief but very solid performances. The setting is gorgeous (cinematography by Gyula Pados) and the musical score is by the inimitable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Lajos Koltai ('Being Julia') directs. Judge this film on your own.... Grady Harp


That's right, we've got a 2008 film using themes of 'Brief Encounter,' and 'The Bridges of Madison County.' It's basically the story of lost loves, redemption and a triumph of the human spirit.

The performances by Richard Gere and especially Diane Lane are very good. Gere gives the kind of restrained performance here as a doctor who is searching for meaning, after a patient dies on the operating table. Lane is the mother of a rebellious daughter and a nice young son, who has split from her wandering husband and has also sustained the loss of her father in the same year.

Scott Glenn steals the show in a one scene meeting with Gere. He is the heartbroken husband and he recounts his love to his departed wife, it will bring tears to your eyes.

Fresh from her triumph as an acquiescing mother in 'Doubt,' Viola Davis appears as an understanding friend in the film and literally hangs her hair down in a rather benign performance.


With Ralph Bakshi most of his films appear to be like two-edged swords. You'll get something awesome out of it but only if you put up with the silly and the unnecessarily cheezy. The Lord of the Rings was a great adaptation of the story which perhaps didn't always shine in the animation department.

Fire and Ice is a great achievement from Bakshi from an animation point of view. The rotoscoping is a lot more detailed and the animation has a vibrant look to it. You still get some of the dull still-cells and slightly blurred background paintings but on the over-all the look has definitely gotten better since Bakshi's last fantasy epic. The animation has almost a realistic-naturalistic style to it, and unlike in LOTR where this style was often at odds with the actual content, here it enhances the film's unique atmosphere.

Unfortunately the film fails to create a meaningful story out of its simple setting and in fact most of the characters' motivations are pretty blurred. Lorn and Tigra are easy cases but even the main villain Necron was difficult to follow not to mention That Guy with Furry Face Mask (also known as just 'That Guy'). Even though most of the voice actor's were appropriate, there are some odd quirks in the audio-department and Tigra especially sounds really terrible whenever she's screaming.

However, I believe the film's inherent entertainment value outweighs its unnecessarily silly execution of the plot-line. The scant clad of the characters is something you'll never get over but it helps you remind yourself that perhaps this film isn't even intended to be taken too seriously. It's still a hella cool and really funny.


A great British Indy movie! Fantastic chemistry between the 3 main characters make for some hilarious drug-fuelled set pieces that Cheech and Chong would be proud of. Great to see Phil Daniels back on the big screen (even if he has swapped sides since Quadrophenia!) and Gary Stretch is surprisingly good and a treat for the ladies! Loved the final fight scene with it's nod to Zulu and now I know what happened to Arthur Brown after he set himself on fire on Top of the Pops!...he's not acting....he really is a bona-fide British hippie!!! You don't have to be a biker to enjoy this and it's straight into my Friday night post-pub repeat viewing collection.

Give this film a go and you won't be disappointed.


Hair is one of my favorite movies of all times. Even not being part of my generation, I already watched this movie 9 times and I can't get enough with the beautiful message of understanding,passion,beauty and love. This movie is against the Vietnam war and shows how people should be united independent of the color,origins, religions and classes. I love the characters Berger and Woof and I think Central Park of the 70's one of the most beautiful places I already saw in my life.

By the way,I still have this music in my mind:

When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius The age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or decisions Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation Aquarius! Aquarius!

ps: I am surprised to see that the director of this movie is the same director of AMADEUS. I just love both movies!


I happened to spot this flick on the shelf under 'new releases' and found the idea of a hip-hop zombie flick far too interesting to pass up. That's how it was billed on the box, anyhow, and I thought to myself, 'What a great idea!' Plus there's a 'Welcome to Oakland' sign on the cover, too. How could I resist? Unfortunately, the hip-hop part only lasted for as long as the opening theme. Neither hip-hop music nor hip-hop culture had much of a role in the movie. Having lived in Oakland myself, I know that there are many aspiring hip-hop artists there, so the low budget of this flick was no excuse not to have a fitting soundtrack. Any number of struggling artists would have jumped on the opportunity to contribute to this flick. Why the Quiroz Brothers didn't take advantage of this is beyond me.

Once the film got rolling, it was a completely typical zombie movie with a cast that just so happened to be completely black and Latino. You might think that this would put an unusual slant on the movie... but it didn't. Somehow, the Quiroz Brothers vision of 'urban culture' boils down to drive-by shootings and dropping an F-bomb in every line in the movie. The rapid-fire use of the word 'fuck' is probably this movie's most distinguishing characteristics; there were single lines that contained the word three or four times, and no line didn't contain it at least once. I'm not at all squeamish about swearing in a movie, but the feeling here was that it was the result of a lack of ideas on the part of the writers (also the Quiroz Brothers), and the script was generally very poor.

The film was generally a disappointment. It would have been interesting to see a genuinely 'urban culture' zombie flick, but 'Hood of the Living Dead' doesn't deliver on that count. The characters in the movie could just as easily have been white or eskimo or anything else. There was no distinct flavor to the movie. It's just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick with bad acting, lousy writing, amateurish direction, bland cinematography, a cheap soundtrack, and nothing at all to recommend it.


This is probably the fastest-paced and most action-packed of the German Edgar Wallace 'krimi' series, a cross between the Dr. Mabuse films of yore and 60's pop thrillers like Batman and the Man from UNCLE. It reintroduces the outrageous villain from an earlier film who dons a stylish monk's habit and breaks the necks of victims with the curl of a deadly whip. Set at a posh girls' school filled with lecherous middle-aged professors, and with the cops fondling their hot-to-trot secretaries at every opportunity, it certainly is a throwback to those wonderfully politically-incorrect times. There's a definite link to a later Wallace-based film, the excellent giallo 'Whatever Happened to Solange?', which also concerns female students being corrupted by (and corrupting?) their elders. Quite appropriate to the monk theme, the master-mind villain uses booby-trapped bibles here to deal some of the death blows, and also maintains a reptile-replete dungeon to amuse his captive audiences.

Alfred Vohrer was always the most playful and visually flamboyant of the series directors, and here the lurid colour cinematography is the real star of the show. The Monk appears in a raving scarlet cowl and robe, tastefully setting off the lustrous white whip, while appearing against purplish-night backgrounds. There's also a voyeur-friendly turquoise swimming pool which looks great both as a glowing milieu for the nubile students and as a shadowy backdrop for one of the murder scenes. The trademark 'kicker' of hiding the 'Ende' card somewhere in the set of the last scene is also quite memorable here. And there's a fine brassy and twangy score for retro-music fans.

Fans of the series will definitely miss the flippant Eddie Arent character in these later films. Instead, the chief inspector Sir John takes on the role of buffoon, convinced that he has mastered criminal psychology after taking a few night courses. Unfortunately, Klaus Kinski had also gone on to bigger and better things. The krimis had lost some of their offbeat subversive charm by this point, and now worked on a much more blatant pop-culture level, which will make this one quite accessible to uninitiated viewers.


The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.

It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.

Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!

Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck.


It's hard for me to explain this show to my grown friends. I have a bunch of Shasta Daisy's in the back yard which I lovingly call my 'Chuckle Patch.' My friends laugh at me and look at me like I have 2 heads. It would be great to see this series on DVD for us folks who remember it fondly with our other childhood memories, or to show our friends that there really WAS a chuckle patch! Where kids TV today is compiled of violent cartoons, characters who do magic, or a talking sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea, The Magic Garden was real in the respect that it taught us good values.

I will hold fond memories of Carole and Paula, and the Chuckle Patch.


I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.

The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another 'Bad News Bears' is embarrassing to say the VERY least.

I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is 'Numero Uno'.

Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.


What a despairing film. Dress actors in furry rags, place in suburban wasteland, set cameras rolling and hope for the best. One can only imagine e the thanks the cast gave when their characters were killed off by sockpuppets, thus sparing them further humiliation in this dullfest. This rivals Monster a go-go as the best cure for insomnia ever made. Oh God - how can I fill up 10 lines explaining how overwhelmingly bored everybody looks in this movie? Whiney crappy plastic bungling robot who annoys everybody both on and off screen, Giant spider reduced to a single giant hairy leg pulled by string, actors desperately trying not to look at the camera while mumbling off dialogs...


This is te cartoon that should have won instead of Country Cousin. Visually well-done and much more entertaining and memorable. Worth watching just for the music alone! Although there are elements that undoubtably will bruise the sensibilities of some these days, the cartoon has to be given a bit of perspective. It's over sixty years old and it is, after all, just a cartoon. I'm disabled and if I were as hyper-sensitive as the folks who look at things like this cartoon and take umbrage, I would have long since curled up in a fetal position and faded away. Sometimes you need to lighten up, put your head back and float! Caricatures of celebrities in cartoons were common in the 1930s and 1940s and were almost never terribly flattering. Bing Crosby reportedly hated it when he was used on more than one occasion. *SIGH*


The Chinese film title of 'In the Mood for Love' is 'fa yeung nien wah.' It can be interpreted as 'those blossoming years (that once were).'

The whole film is a well-composed piece. A complex love story told in simple visual approach. Writer-director Wong Kar-Wai has choreographed a dancing of the hearts - it's she, it's he, it's love. I can hear Galasso's theme: dum dum-dum, dum dum-dum, and the strings - almost like heartbeats. A piece with prelude, stanzas, and epilogue.

Director optimized the use of music (Michael Galasso's score, Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, and Chinese songs/tunes). The rhythm and lyrics prompt viewers to what she and he is feeling/thinking rather than verbal dialogs. I can hear Nat King Cole giving us the clues: 'Aquelloojos verde' (that thing, fling, eyes green) plays when the two meet, and 'Quizas, quizas, quizas' (perhaps) when she's undecided.

Nostalgia pervades throughout the film. Design details plentiful: handbags and ties; Japanese rice-cooker novelty; the ridged pattern green glass cups & saucers and plates (I remember Dad treasured those at home); mahjong session; kitchen area; bedroom furnishings; the thermos for the take-out noodles that she swings when she walks. Maggie Cheung, slender and shapely, looks exquisite in those fashionable patterns & colors of the traditional Chinese woman clothing - 'cheung sam'. Every change of her dress denotes another day, another time in the story. Wong Kar-Wai is resourceful that way.

The scenes may be of the same place, but it's of a different mood, advanced to the next stanza. Up and down the stairs to the won-ton noodle stand. Standing by the wall around the corner to the apartments as the rain pours. Along the corridor, back and forth, to his writing corner.

Trivia: So she helps him with his writing of his martial arts novel. Maggie would be able to help as she's been in kung fu/martial arts movies. 'Eastern Three Heroes' 1992 is a fun action movie with Maggie Cheung (Thief Catcher Chat), Michelle Yeoh and Anita Mui as three super heroes fighting evils.

If you appreciate Tony Leung's performance, don't miss 'Chungking Express' 1994 (in the second segment - romance rhythm with a difference), and 'Happy Together' 1997 (an intense, emotionally colorful painting of friendships, faith, and fate), both written and directed by Wong Kar-Wai.

Being able to understand the Cantonese and Shanghainese dialects, and having visited the official site, I realized the epilogue was not quite completely translated. Here's sharing my version of the Chinese captions:

It was kind of an unbearable encounter All along she has kept her head lowered Giving him a chance to get closer He didn't have the courage to be closer She turned around, walked away.

That time and place had come to past. All that belonged, no longer exist. _______

Those vanished years, seemingly separated by a glass gathering dust, can see, yet cannot grasp.

All along he has longed for all that's past If he can break through that dust-gathered glass He will walk back into the times long vanished. ________

Wong Kar-Wai's 'In the Mood for Love' brings to mind the simple poetry and wisdom of Rumi, the Sufi philosopher - the 'inner and outer,' the 'spirit and body' of life, love and living.

[Resend. Revised. ruby_fff 2/22/01]


I respect the fact that this is a very popular show. However, in comparison with Robert Altman's ingenious, hilarious, zany, and groundbreaking 1970 movie classic, this show was probably destined to be less-than-mediocre... even if it did run for 11 years, that doesn't necessarily make it any good. This show formed an all-too-integral part of my early childhood (it was on re-runs every night, and guess whose parents were watching it and laughing it up), but it's one of the memories I don't miss. And now that I actually have seen the movie, I can give this series an accurate critique. On its own, it's not nearly '2 out of 10' bad. However, the characters on this show are nothing like those in the movie. Some of them technically are the same, but they're only similar in name. For instance, since when is Alan Alda anything like Donald Sutherland? His style of humor is totally different, as are his characterization and outlook. The new characters are not that great; they just serve to make you miss the ones that they're replacing. It's the same with the new actors (including Jamie Farr). The only thing that actually transfers to the series is Radar, who's still (even though played by the same actor) merely a pale imitation of the original. What else? Oh, yeah. With a laugh track (it didn't matter whether it was used in surgery scenes or not), it comes across as creepy, due to what's going on in the other settings. And because it lasted nearly four times longer than the actual Korean War, it takes viewers into this bizarre temporal rift that doesn't work outside the world of cartoons. I've never liked this show, and I never will.