I recently saw Blind Spot in Coyoacan, where it drew a huge crowd and some pretty intense discussion. I really admired the story and visual approach. The action is frightening and the mood of loneliness that the film projects is amazing. There is much beauty in the melancholy that surrounds these three misfit heroes. Not just in the desert but in the city too. My best scene was after the boy discovers his friends in the apartment and then rides his skateboard through all the remarkable lights of the city. You really feel for this guy. I never heard of the actors before but I liked all three very much. I think they did a terrific job on their journey to self-discovery. All in all, this is an amazingly cool and suspenseful suspenseful film. I still carry many of the images in my mind.


One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes. And the next day we were in the supermarket at Hollywood Blvd. and La Brea, my father and I, and guess who was coming toward us in the aisle! Barney Phillips, but no hat on -- at least, I don't think he had a hat on.

We asked him about his third eye, and he said something like he left it at home, and everybody he met that day had asked him about it.

A friendly guy. We used to see all kinds of character actors in LA in those days.

BTW, I was a teenager and it took a long time for me to get over the 'three hands' on the other alien!

Robyn Frisch O'Neill

Hollywood native and resident 1947 to 1963.


LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film 'Le Mouton Enrage' (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this 'lost' film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the 'Special Features' section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.)


Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it 'entertainment'. Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.


This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a 'Looney Tunes' episode.

Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.

I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.


It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger!

One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.

I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.


this is complete crap do not watch the main character is so f u c king concerned that the doc's bomb shelter is not big enough for everyone thus he claims the doc is playing god by saying who lives and who dies all during his 13itching, he kills people without thinking twice and beats people to near death also, the main character is an selfish little a$$ wipe as because of him, the doc who made the shelter died and his friend died. he also killed several no name cops the main character is just a f u c king dumb hillbilly s h i t head that's got no concept of the greater good also, this movie makes no f u c king sense. tell me why a comet would cause seismic activity? (if you say gravity, i will f u c king rape you cause the comet is smaller then the moon and you don't see the moon causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes and avalanches).

why does a comet cause atmospheric discharges (the red lightning, also why is it red?) in addition, if you don't know, the F U C KING MOONS BEEN HIT BY COMETS THOUSANDS OF TIMES!!! thats why there's f u c king craters everywhere on the moon. the size of an object needed to shatter the moon into the fragments as portrayed in the movie would require a comet around the size of the moon itself.

it takes huge amounts of KE to cause an satellite to explode like that.

a goof in this movie is that the nuclear explosion in space resulted in a disk shaped shock wave. this is incorrect as in space, the explosion should have produced an spherical shock wave. this inaccuracy is also apparent when the comet hits the moon.

also, someone tell me why the commander (the person who drives the big old broken plane) suddenly felt the need to die? i mean he's just like walking with them to the shelter, then he stops, he salutes the main character.

WTF?!?!!?!? the main character is also an ugly @$$hole, he's got a huge forehead and thinning hair. disgusting.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!


this is a terrible, terrible film!!!!!!!!!

first of all TOOO long. the longest movie i have ever seen.

the stories are all too Damn Over the Top!!!!

as a matter of fact there are too many stories that the Story line is Ruined.

the comedy wasn't Comedy!!!!! it wasn't funny at all....

the story is so repulsive and badly written that it doesnot matter if the characters live or die.......

i had some expectations from this movie......... but my expectations were crashed completely in the first few minutes......

the only thing good about this movie is the MUSIC...... and obviously Vidya Balan. she gives the best performance and stands out among all the senior actors...... she's just a new comer and yet she shines and makes the rest of the cast look so Pathetic!!!!! Govinda and the Blonde who playes his love interest also help saving this Disastrous movie. Govinda perfectly fits in the role of the Taxi driver. and the Blonde also gives a very subtle and consistent performance....

another Talented actress Ayesha Takiya is completely wasted in this movie!!!! so is priyanka!!!!!!!!! Akshay does his role well but it seemed too over the top!!!!! Anil and Juhi are also totally wasted......

the only one not wasted is Salman Because he has No Talent what so ever to be wasted!!!!!!!!!

all in all this is a very Impossible movie with Mishmashed screenplay and TOOO Masladar that the storyline is shaped according to the stupid comedy scenes. imagine how stupid this movie is!!!!!!

3/10 it is four hours long!!!! think and RETHINK before going to the cinemas!!!!! better Avoid it!!!!!


I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.

I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.

For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.

see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.


I seriously don´t know why this movie got such a hostile reception when it was first released. Sure, it´s overlong and somewhat gratuitous in its depictions of sexuality and violence but so are lots of well regarded movies. I seriously don´t think that the people who hated 'Heaven´s Gate' really understood it. 'Heaven´s Gate' in its uncut form, much like 'The Deer Hunter' shows the gross differences of living an insecure and dangerous life (like the immigrants and Averil in Wyoming) and living in comfort and privilege (like the settled 'Americans' in Wyoming and Averil in the prologue and epilogue). Living a hard life is painful but it can also be invigorating as opposed to the dull life Averil leads in the epilogue. Also, as Michael Cimino took great pains to make the picture historically accurate , it is fascinating as a document of (and maybe indictment of) American life in Old West Wyoming. The dialogue is often genuinely clever and emotional. Combined with great music and cinematography, the movie works like a truly poetic work of art. Granted, 'Heaven´s Gate', with its refusal to patronize the viewer, is not for all tastes. However, Hollywood turns out so much commercial dreck each year which is so much easier to dismiss as mindless eye candy (even when an example of it becomes a blockbuster) that 'Gate' and Cimino really do deserve more respect. All people should see the uncut version at least once and then they should make up their own mind.


Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to 'The Silence of the Lambs', this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen.

It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.

I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me.


The sounds in the movie were so mundane and ridiculous, seriously banging on the door hinges for about 30 minutes really crunches your teeth and makes your head hurt.

i love bad puns more than the next guy, but come on 'no blood on our hands' being said about a million times by Matt Dillon' character, and when Matt Dillon's character shoots the bum the lead character which i fail to remember his name because i don't really think anyone cares gets blood on his hands literally.

the background music with the heavy metal guitar ringing an A-chord for about 5 minutes isn't my idea of music, come on i was having the worst headache by the end of this garbage.


Spoilers ahead JEEEEEEEESUSSSSSSSSSS.... I have a saying: 'Insecticides kill insects and Moronicides kill morons...' The 'ghost' in this movie kills morons. Several of the people who get killed in this movie are actually ASKING to get killed, by running into abandoned houses, going after ghosts, etc...

On a strictly cinematic aspect, this movie sucks real bad. The three story lines are shown to be parallel and suddenly, we learn they are separated by at least a few days. It's a cheap shot...

Also, the 'thrills' are so cheap, they are laughable. Even 'Nightmare on Elm Street' didn't sink so low as to show someone being attacked by his own sweater... it's pathetic.

Save your money, stay home, and you won't have a grudge against the filmmakers..


It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say 'don't take it seriously' or 'so bad its good' or 'it wasn't scary'. None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.


While I don't consider myself a big fan of fairy tale movies, Stardust intrigued me based on seeing Michelle Pfeiffer in the trailers as a villain (especially since I was about to see her as the bossy Velma Von Tussle in Hairspray). Boy, is she so convincingly evil here as a witch, especially with her age-ugly makeup in the beginning and end! Robert De Niro is also great as the pirate captain who's forced to hide 'in the closet' to protect his 'reputation'! Just about all the actors like Claire Danes, Rupert Everett, Ricky Gervais, Peter O'Toole and many others do fine work here. While Danes and Pfeiffer are classic beauties, there's also stunning faces of Sienna Miller, Olivia Grant (as Girl Bernard), and Kate Magowan especially when we first meet her. Newcomer Charlie Cox is fine as the lead Tristan and he looked so much like his father Dunstan as a young man that I thought that was him in early scenes with Magowan (actually Ben Barnes). Many comments have compared this to The Princess Bride and while I can see some resemblances, the main difference was that with PB, you always knew it was just an imaginary tale as told by an old man to his grandson. Stardust makes you believe, for the most part, that what you're seeing and hearing could have actually happened even with all the hilarity that happens throughout. So on that note, I highly recommended Stardust.


This is what James Cagney is all about, wisecracks, cockiness, hard as nails and no-nonsense charisma.

Although the plot sounds serious, the film is anything but. It is done in the 30's screwball comedy style and works well with his 'bickering' with fiancé Mae Clark and his reactions to the tall stories of his colleague James Burke.

What raises it above normal is the dialogue and the cast that delivers it. Dialogue is good but it is nothing unless delivery is spot on and can bounce about the characters involved. This is done well by all throughout.

Good entertainment and thoroughly enjoyable.


Ever have one of those sneezes that seems to build up forever? You gasp and you convulse and you grab the nearest paper product in preparation for the world's greatest hanky-blower...and then it fizzles. 'Frankenhooker' was the cinematic equivalent of that lost sneeze. Now, I'm big on B-movies, and I always look the other way when a boom mike pops onscreen or an actor speaks his or her lines with all the enthusiasm of Gerald Ford, but this one really let me down. The cover of the video, for instance, IS the tag-line of the whole movie. Using parts from murdered New York prostitutes, Dr. Franken rebuilds his deceased fiancee, only to have her run amok in Manhattan as a sort of superprostitute with a bad attitude. After an hour and a half of build-up, this fairly funny ten minutes seemed a little anti-climactic.


Martha Plimpton has done some prestigious movies, working with River Phoenix and Harrison Ford, but she was never able to expand her limited, tomboyish appeal into the same class as, say, Molly Ringwald. This film, which was barely released, is just an extension of her late '80s/early '90s attempts to find a screen-persona which was identifiable to moviegoers, and it represents another failure. Plimpton plays a troubled young woman who finds out on her 21st birthday that she was adopted and--worse than that--was actually abandoned as an infant on her parents' doorstep! She sets out to find her biological mother and father, but the viewer has no clue why she'd even want to (would simple curiosity give her this much determination?). Unattractive material given sitcom handling; it starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers. Plimpton gives a sour, surly performance, but Hector Elizondo and Mary Kay Place are fine as her adoptive parents. *1/2 from ****


I love those kind of movies. Blood, Revenge, A Lot of Action, Very Dark, Cheesy and More. But this one doesn't deliver the genre that you might expect. When I saw Kite Birds and Ichi the Killer before, I had fun watching those but why this one not? Dead or Alive: Final is a decent anime and its not hardcore and don't even expect nudity in this movie.At least add some more action to entertain the audience. Even the drama wasn't that good. Well, I don't want to spoil the movie nor the plot.But I felt that Dead or Alive: Final is a bit nerdy. So, without further to do. I don't recommend this movie to everyone but I recommend for the people who love decent and well directed anime.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


This is one of the funniest and most excellent movies ever made! Although I've only seen forty minuets of it and I must say this is a good movie. The plot if funny and because there's sex around pretty much every corner of this movie. It's really funny and I don't see how anyone could NOT like this film. I really really really want to watch the rest of the movie. It has one slightly sick scene in it (trust me, it's not very pleasant) but apart from that this is a great movie. I rate this movie an 7/8 for comedy, 10/10 for sexual content and 10/10 for the plot. PLease if your a fan of American Pie and you want to watch a movie where there's pretty much all sex in it the buy this movie. It WILL please you.

10/10


Why do I give this 1974 porn movie 7 points? Because I watched it. And I found it hilarious! Aliens, their weird spaceship, their weird helmets... my God, was that a sight. And all what these desperate alien women need is semen from the earth.

And where do they look for it? In upper Bavaria, Germany. And that is where the main fun comes from: In Europe (and more so in German-speaking countries), Bavaria is seen as a traditional and backward region. And then the actors are so helpless with the alien women. Well, there have been films about people being unable to deal with women like the 'American Pie' series.

But what this film achieved is a true, funny weirdness. You constantly wonder how they came up with these crackpot ideas. But it was 1974, and looking back 35 years fills one with a kind of nostalgia. You've never seen a film like that.

And if you don't mind seeing the casual pubic hairs and breasts, watch it once. It is a comedy essentially, not a porn flick.


Talk about being boring!

I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.

Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.


This could have been a great movie with plenty of educational potential for teachers around the world about evolution, biology, the creative work in science, research and Darwin's life, but it is not.

The screenplay is mostly historically inaccurate and transforms a true story into a Mexican soup-opera melodrama. While it is true that Darwin gradually lost his religious beliefs, this was in great part due to his findings during the voyage of the Beagle and not solely due to the loss of his daughter. He was certainly disturbed by his loss, but that did not made him literally insane, delusional and detached from his friends and family. The such portrayal of Darwin is an invention of the script writer. Thus it cannot be used in any way as place to learn a bit about Darwin's life and psyche. According to most historians, Darwin had the theory ready by the end of the Beagle voyage, and kept it from going public because he wanted to develop further the consequences of it and check against more data. In the movie, it is an imaginary conflict of Darwin with his religious beliefs and the mental illness that he developed after his daughter's death that kept him from going public.

The movie brings a modern situation, the creationists vs scientists debate, into the life and times of Darwin, thus it is anachronistic. It depicts Thomas Huxley not as a man trying to develop further understanding of biology but as someone eager to 'kill God', in his own words from the movie, and destroy the church, who would accept the theory of evolution for such purposes and not because it was a synthesis of plenty of disconnected data. Huxley is presented as a very arrogant and insensible person, a combination that I interpret was an attempt to ridicule active atheists who speak up against religion. In real life, Huxley accepted Darwin's ideas after publication only gradually, and before the work of Darwin he thought that there was not enough evidence to support evolution. His first support of evolution was published one month after the Origin of Species became public. He was agnostic but did not think it was necessary 'to kill God', only thought that there was not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. The debate creationists vs scientists appears throughout the movie, and creationists catch-phrases such as 'It is only a theory' are part of the discussion. Of course, no such dispute or catch-phrases existed at that time. In fact, the Anglican Church published a positive review of the Origin's saying that they saw God's work in evolution, in some sense, quite in fact in contradiction to the way that the clergy is portrayed in the screenplay.

Another awful aspect of this movie is that it gives the wrong impression to the general public that scientific research is done by a solitary crazy man who just writes a lot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The conception of the theory of evolution was the result of thorough observations of living forms by Darwin during five years in the HMS Beagle, and was developed gradually as it can be seen from Darwin's notes of the voyage. Even though the Beagle voyage was the sole most important part of Darwin's life to the conception of 'Origin of Species', the voyage is briefly mentioned only once at the beginning, and no attempt is made to show that the book came as an elaborate analysis of observations. To make it worse, Darwin is shown performing a single experiment (pigeon breeding) to test his theory and, in the end, quits it. And I'm not really sure whether such experiment did actually occur.

Great disappointment. It is not in any way a homage to Darwin and science.


I was especially delighted that in this movie Othello himself was dark-skinned and Desdemona didn't have fair hair like almost always. The cast played very well, too, and I liked the script following Shakespeare's original text so faithfully. But I must say some scenes were acted too erotically for such a character as Desdemona. I have always thought she is very modest, and that's why it is not proper at all to show her in bed with Cassio - although it was happening only in Othello's imagination. At first, I was a little surprised even that a love scene between Othello and Desdemona was shown so openly. But as a whole, I liked the film and especially Desdemona crying in the dying scene.


This was a pretty good episode. Though no 'Trapped in the Closet' or 'Cartoon Wars,' it had a lot of things going for it. The character of Al Gore and that bizarre-as-hell 'super cereal' thing was pretty darn funny. But, the scene that made me adore this episode was one I'm sure everyone will agree was one of the greatest Cartman/Kyle moments ever. When Cartman is superstitious of Kyle that he'll be stealing his gold(which of course is fake!), and he comes within inches of his face. Suddenly, Kyle wakes up, and they have that crazy conversation where Cartman tries to act like everything is completely fine. Cartman crapping out the treasure at the end, though predictable, was pretty funny.


Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through.


All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior 'film' (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of 'this is my roommate, I trained him well'. WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.

If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka 'Killer Workout'. But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.


I love this show and my 11 year-old daughter and I LOVE watching it together. It teaches good old fashioned values in a fun, adventuresome and entertaining way (albeit with a somewhat predictable story most of the time). It's also really fun to make fun of...you know, rewind and insert your own dialog, in place of the actors'.

I have my DVR set to record all the episodes and I happened to catch the tail end of an episode (just prior to the next one starting...so I don't know what episode it was) but there was an absolutely TERRIBLE sequencing mistake! Adam had handed Sheriff Coffee a small swatch of 'leather', which was torn from some outlaw's coat as he tried to make his getaway, I suppose.

Well, Roy happened to have the coat, so he laid it out on his desk and placed the swatch right where it had been torn from. The swatch was EXACTLY rectangular...which I reckon would be nearly impossible to tear from a piece of leather (post-1950's Naugahyde? Yes. Leather? I don't think so). Well, the swatch lined up perfectly and the mystery was solved.

Not 10 seconds later in the scene, we see the coat again, still lying on Roy's desk. But this time the swatch is more like the shape of North Carolina and is now in a COMPLETELY different place on the coat (but still perfectly aligned with the hole in the coat) and the seam (which WAS smack-dab in the middle of the swatch) is now gone...as is the seam in the coat. My daughter enjoyed a good laugh as we played the short scene over and over and over again! It's prime for youtube, I tell ya!

We still totally LOVE the show though and the sequencing errors make it lots of fun!


This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.


The movie shows many feelings and emotions that are very strong and personal. The atmosphere in the movie is very tense and sad. You can really get a clear picture of what the main character is going through, and how he is responding to the world around him. I think it is a great movie, and that everybody should see it.


A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .


I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. 'Get thee out of here!' he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.


I must admit - the only reason I bought this movie was because I am a big fan of Gackt and a *huge* fan of Hyde. I was expecting a good movie with a lot of shots that were, shall we say, pleasing to the feminine eye but a slightly cheesy story. I mean, the synopsis sounded really out there. And now that I have just finished watching it - I feel the need to tell the world of its brilliance! Hyde and Gackt both gave heart-wrenching performances, and my eyes are still hot from the crying that lasted throughout the last half of the movie. You get sucked into the story, and you really feel for the characters by the end. The element of vampirism - which I love, but is very easy to overdo or to ruin a movie with - is subtly mixed into the storyline as to make it something merely exotic, normal to this setting, rather than a random unnecessary addition to the story. I ranked it at a 9 out of 10 at first...and then I went back and tried to think of why I wasn't giving it that last point. Came up with nothing. So a ten out of ten it is. After all - I'm not much of a critic - the fact that I'm bothering to write a review at all means I either really hate the movie or really love it. You can tell what side I'm on with Moon Child.


/*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) */

Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is, to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound (self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is a purely visual experience to be remembered.

BTW, the previous poster noted: 'Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge final action scene.'

I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film.

Finally, I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as 'great' or 'classic', to be 'slow' or 'boring', this film might not be for you yet. Not much cheap entertainment here.

For me though, it is a full 10/10.


This series and Elon Gold were being HYPED as 'the next big thing' in sitcoms for NBC. Well, they weren't. Dennis Farina was terribly miscast as the father in-law. He just seemed so uncomfortable and out of place here. The term, 'Private 'convo' time!' was supposed to become the 'Dyno-mite!' catch phrase of the 21st Century. Well, it wasn't. People were asking then, as they still are today (When his name comes up.), 'Who the hell is Elon Gold?' I saw him on an episode of 'The Mentalist' this evening. I mentioned his name, and my girlfriend asked, 'Who?' Not funny. Total waste of airtime. NBC had really HIGH hopes for this show, but it just fell flat.


How often do you see a film of any kind that has a talent show with refreshments? Waldo's Last Stand is a refreshment. Here Waldo is selling lemonade but isn't making any money. Alfalfa, Spanky, Darla, Mickey, and Buckwheat come to visit him which is ironic because in both 3 Men In A Tub and Came The Brawn where there was competition between Alfalfa and Waldo for Darla's affection. Back to the story: The Gang taste the lemonade to see if Waldo made it right. One funny moment is when Alfalfa gets a glass cup for lemonade and Waldo fills is and gives it to Darla and Alfalfa has an angry expression on his face. Spanky proposes a floor show to go with the lemonade and even Mickey agrees ever so cute. When the floor show begins there is no one at the barn but then a customer comes in (Froggy). Spanky asks him if he wants lemonade but all he does is nod no. Spanky asks him numbers of time in the short and every time Froggy nods no Spanky displays many expressions on his face which is funny. Spanky tries many ways to make him thirsty. One way is when after Mickey said ever so cutely 'Those crackers are salty and they made me thirsty'. There is also many entertain musical bit is this short. The opening number is by Darla which she tap dances and sings. The second includes Alfalfa singing off-key (as usually) with Mickey, Leonard, Spanky, and Buckwheat about 'How dry I am!' (I believe they sing that to make Froggy thirsty. It also made me laugh.). The closing number includes boys and girls all dressed up in an old fashion way. This was Waldo's last Our Gang short. A grand musical short that is a pure 10 out of 10.


The pilot is extremely well done. It lays out how the characters bond in future episodes. I don't think anyone could have created a better pilot for this show. It displays remarkable creativity on the writers part. Although not everything was straightened out because it was the very first episode, a lot of events that happen in future seasons were demonstrated in the pilot. An example would be Ross and Rachels future relationship. Even though the nervousness of a first episode appeared, it was overcome by an amazing plot and outstanding cast choice.

Bravo.

A great start to an unbeatable comedy!


Simon Pegg plays a rude crude and often out of control celebrity journalist who is brought from England to work for a big American magazine. Of course his winning ways create all sorts of complications. Amusing fact based comedy that co stars Kristen Dunst (looking rather grown up), Danny Huston, and Jeff Bridges. It works primarily because we like Simon Pegg despite his bad behavior. We completely understand why Kristen Dunst continues to talk to him despite his frequent screw ups. I liked the film. Its not the be all and end all but it was a nice way to cap off an evening of sitting on the couch watching movies.

7 out of 10


Another sequel! Why on earth do they keep making these? This has got to be the weakest 'franchise' ever, yet it is still being funded and spawning sequels. SCARECROW GONE WILD - which I only watched so I could officially trash the whole series - brings back the evil straw-man who, again, butchers up some college kids... That's basically it. The acting sucks (as usual), the death scenes are beyond pathetic, and don't be fooled by the title, this thing doesn't have as much nudity as you may think. A couple nice topless girls, but nothing too pants tightening. Let me just conclude my continuous insult (or review) on this movie by saying: if I come across a SCARECROW IN SPACE or a FREDDY VS SCARECROW on the video store shelves, I'm going to be in absolute awe...


Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great episode and so I can only give it a 6. Proper grammar and pronunciation are essential to a film.

It was very Hellraiser what with all the skin ripping though I dunno how anyone can survive without skin the skin is a vital organ to the body the biggest organ actually and without we would die. The more a horror film is true the more creepy it can be and more entertaining.

I do admit though that the stories from the great horror directors are very disappointing and very mediocre.

6/10 come on Yankies get your English up to par !


conventional and superficial ,Claude´s portrayal was incomplete it is supposed that just a few moments with Sheila , makes him win her love , but the story itself and the songs make it and enjoyable experience essentially the final sequence .Altough i don´t know why it was given a PG rating .


This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the 'Childs Play' series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....

Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, 'I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!' when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.

When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.

Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.

I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!


I absolutely hated this movie! I was 9 when I saw it. It is the only movie I have ever walked out of in the theater. My mom, dad, and I all looked at each other during the movie and knew we were wasting our time. This movie stole approximately 45 minutes of my life. Everything about it was ridiculous. The entire premise was too warped. Being 9, I was always easily entertained. This movie proved that I couldn't subject myself to anything and still be entertained.


pokemon the movie was a terrible film. unlike the first one, this is not a good film at all. the graphics were decent but the story was flat and no real drama was built up in it. in the first one the interaction between the characters were decent. the subtraction of brock and addition of tracey was bad. tracey really doesn't have much to say or do, and unlike brock offers no comic relief. the only good points is you get to see misty actually get jelous over ash, and her early brooding over being called his girlfriend was entertaining. overall this film isn't worth renting and the short movie before didn't do anything for me or my wife. and we do consider ourselves pokemon fans.oh well, maybe the next one will be better.cant ge t much worse


The supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an 'NC-17' rating).

*1/2 out of ****


I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.

Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, 'What happened here' and she replies 'Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday'!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.

There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film.


I came home late one night and turned on the TV, to see Siskel and Ebert summarizing their picks of the week. I didn't hear anything about 'Red Rock West', except two thumbs up and see it before it went away. It wouldn't stay in theaters very long because of the distributor's money problems and lack of promotion, but they said it deserved better.

The next afternoon, I followed their advice. They were right, it was some of the most fun I have ever had at the movies. As some readers point out, there are a few plot holes and the last 10 minutes don't ever seem to end. But it's well worth it, for the fine craftwork that went into the first hour. It's the best role that I have ever seen for Nicholas Cage, but almost everybody seems perfectly cast. Dennis Hopper goes almost over the top, which gets silly but reinforces how well everything else works. The sets and the music contribute a great deal to almost every scene.

When I rented it later for my family, it didn't work as well. The long scenes that built the tension in the theater were difficult to appreciate, with the distractions at home. It deserves your full attention; turn off the phone, make sure you won't be disturbed, watch and listen to every scene, especially in the beginning.


Growing up as of child of the movies, one of the trilogies I shall not soon forget is that of the Karate Kid. You can put down Ralph / Daniel all you want, but its the message behind the movies that are important, that its important to be respectful to all creatures great and small, but stand up for yourself when the time calls for it. Getting back to the movie at hand, its rather funny because, I saw Boys Don't Cry and was really impressed with the performance of Hillary Swank, and in flipping through the sea of channels the other night, I came across the showing of this film and I hadn't realized at the time of my first viewing of this movie that she was in it. The story centers around Julie, just like Daniel, not knowing where to fit in or if she even wants to fit in and the master teacher is brought in to help straighten her out and guide her. I really liked this addition to the series as it gave a good feminine side to the story and yes, even some outfits that Hillary were in kept me, shall we say stimulated.

Overall 3.5 out of 5


Slow and nice images changed one another, with sometimes annoying music (you know Bjork) in background, for the first 75% of the movie. If you did not have enough sleep, that's a good time.

But, in the last 20% of the movie director decides to bring idea of re-birth, re-incarnation or else, through S&M images: 'spiritual lovers' are cutting each others bodies with knives. For me it was very much disturbing and actually changed general impression of blend of abstract art and images of modern Japanese mystery.

Operator and director are great, but weird.

Did not enjoy it at all.


It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.


DO not take this film seriously, rent it with some folks who want to play Mystery Science 3000, and you will probably laugh your butts off. The evil guys are so not scary, it's funny, it's like some dude from 7th grade with a sickle in a scarecrow get up. The acting is hilarious. I love the occasional self torture with a poor horror film and this really had me giggling. I recommend it on that basis. Of course recreational drugs will enhance the experience. Oh, there is a naked group swimming scene, that will allow for some star dust on the 5 star system. The token black male gets injured badly, but continues his joking as well as using the injured body part quite readily throughout. Enjoy this complete and utter disgrace to films.


It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak 'plot' and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.


Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.


The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of '1' simply because '0' wasn't given to me as an option.

I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.


I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch.


I recently got THE SEVEN-UPS on video and I must say it was a very enjoyable movie. Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco are great as the cop and crook respectively and a young Richard Lynch is great as psycho henchman Moon. The late Bill Hickman is pretty good as his associate Bo and sets up a brilliant car chase sequence which will have you on the edge of your seats. The other three members of the Seven-Ups team are pretty bland but that's only to be expected.

I'm glad that a lot of people on this site have supported this movie. I think it should be a film that should be released on DVD and not just forgotten. I certainly enjoyed every minute of it. The final scene between the two leads is excellent as the bad guy must face the consequences of his actions. THE SEVEN-UPS does not disappoint.


Probably this is the best film of Clint Eastwood. Here action is minimal, but with plenty of good acting. A Yankee soldier Eastwood is wounded and taken by the female pupils and teachers of a school in the South, where he is hidden and taken care. Shortly after his recovery all ladies wanted to have fun with him, and some of them succeeded including the director of the school(Geraldine Page). Erotic scenes are coming until the ladies discovered that their 'macho' was shared by several of them, so they became angry and poisoned him in a farewell dinner. Geraldine Page, although somewhat old, was able to play a very suggestive role as the director of the school, a woman with more failures than happiness in her life.


I watched the presentation of this on PBS in the U.S. when it originally aired in 1988 (?). Assuming the miniseries was available on DVD I purchased first editions of all three books last year. Since then I have been searching for the series on internet movie sites. Today I found this web site. I will give up the search.

I too would like to buy this complete - 26 episodes - miniseries. After buying the DVDs I would read each book, then watch the episodes for that book. That is what I did with John LeCarre's Karla trilogy and Larry McMurty's Texas ranger trilogy.

Does anyone have any suggestions for great books or book series that became very good TV miniseries - or movie series - that are now available on DVD?


a real hoot, unintentionally. sidney portier's character is so sweet and lovable you want to smack him. nothing about this movie rings true. and it's boring to boot.


Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that from the word go this is heading straight for the 'big fun' drawer. By the time we observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, maleficent queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Dominic Jephcott, who all display signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly.

The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly put together.


I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats!


Somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain cells a song plays in my head. I can't forget it no matter how hard I try. It's MIDNIGHT MADNESS and it's gonna get to you! Wish i could find a copy of this on a 45rpm record. Five disparate teams head out one night in L.A. for a scavenger hunt for clues instead of physical objects. An unkempt game-master with two gorgeous assistants is the mastermind of all this insanity that's about to be unleashed on L.A. All the teams are stereotypes (this movie being from 1980, before political correctness screwed everything up): the 'good guys', the 'nerds' led by Eddie Deezen, the dumb beer-loving 'jocks', the 'we-don't-need-a-man-type ladies', especially the redhead. The giggling twins are a scream, too. And finally, the 'bad guys' with Stephen Furst as the leader. Furst is hilarious as the overweight slob Harold, whose attempt to use a computer to decipher the various clues leads to a gooey mess. Movies like this aren't made anymore. These days, movies have to have an 'edginess' to them with some dark characters and other nonsense. Go back to the days when the 'good guys' led by David Naughton were still good and not hopelessly conflicted. So dump all serious pretensions and go back to 1980. It's MIDNIGHT MADNESS . . .


_The Wild Life_ has an obvious resemblance to _Fast Times At Ridgemont High_, and _The Wild Life_ comes up short.

------------

Some other stan wrote the above comment. Of course The Wild Life is no Ridgemont. Ridgemont is the quintessential 80s flica. However, the Wild Life is enjoyable if you're not whiny about mindless movies being mindless movies (especially when you know it's supposed to be a mindless movie in the first place). The little Latino from Scarface is in this movie and he's straight disrespectful ('I got Visa...Masterrrrr Charrrrge!!') The Colonel also makes an appearance ('Lawsuit...'). RIP The Colonel 1931-1997.

This movie is no worse than a 6 in comparison to other genres, btw. It is no worse than a 7 in terms of other 80s teen comedies at that. It does very much have the feel of a Cameron Crowe movie. Only staniels gave it a 5.


It takes a little while to get used to Nick Nolte's Nebraskan locutions before we can easily accept him as a famous intercontinental playwright. Once you get past the bar, it turns into a fascinating story of a man who loses everything while trying to do good.

Nolte, an American, moves to Germany, marries a famous actress, and is a satisfied success in every respect until war is about to break out. He's visited by a jovial American, John Goodman, who persuades him to accept a post as an anti-Semitic radio broadcaster for the Nazis. Nolte has no politics but thinks it's a challenge to write a role that's almost impossible and then play it himself. Another American secret agent will modify Nolte's radio scripts -- inserting a cough here, a sneeze there -- that will serve as a code for the transmission of intelligence to the Allies. There's a catch, though. Nobody will know about Nolte's real role as an American agent except Goodman, Donovan, and Roosevelt himself. If he's ever uncovered, he'll be refused recognition by the Americans.

Nolte plunges ahead and his vicious broadcasts are wildly popular in Germany. His adored wife, Sheryl Lee, knows nothing of what's going on, nor does she care. Nolte and Lee live in what he repeatedly refers to as 'a nation of two.' The war ends and the trouble begins. He's captured by Americans who are bitter because of his betrayal. They beat him and leave him in the mud. He's rescued by Goodman, his 'fairy godmother', who sends him to an anonymous existence in Greenwich Village and sends him a little cash now and then.

By 1960, he manages to cultivate a friendship with his neighbor, the painter Alan Arkin, who has also lost his family and claims the two now belong to a secret brotherhood. But his location and his identity somehow leak out and he is more or less adopted by a group of ancient Aryan racists -- led by a dentist and a priest. His house front and mailbox are painted with swastikas and accusations. He's beaten senseless by an ex-GI. But -- miraculously -- his beloved wife is returned to him by the ancient Aryans. Another catch: it turns out later that it's not his wife, but rather her younger sister who has loved him since adolescence.

The ending has him typing his memoirs in an Israeli jail in 1967 before his trial for crimes against humanity. It's not a happy ending.

Nolte can talk with, but not see, the occupant of the cell above his in jail. It's Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann seems pleasant enough. He advises Nolte that it's a bad habit to type for fifteen straight hours. 'It's important to relax. You must learn to relax.' Nolte laughs out loud and shouts, 'That's how I GOT here.' The film is filled with such ironies. At one point in their relaxed conversations, Arkin tells him that 'in spite of everything I still think people are good at heart.' I don't know if the movie was a commercial success but if it wasn't, that's the sort of thing that might have torpedoed it for a younger audience of theater-goers who may never have heard of Anne Frank let alone that supposedly final statement in her diary.

The fact is that it's a movie for adults, and patient adults at that. The story moves slowly, there's very little violence, no car chases, no shootings, and people don't seem subject to manic speech pressure. A lot of it will probably slip past viewers who don't open themselves to its deliberate approach. Nolte refers to the war-time relationship between him and his wife as 'a nation of two.' This is a pretty compact phrase. No doubt anyone could come up with a glib definition but it takes a little concentration to grasp its emotional import.

It's a story of a man who loses everything -- his ability to write, his identity, his wife (twice), his sole friend, his country, his self respect. At one point he stops walking along a crowded New York street and simply stands there until after dark, when he is moved along by a curious cop. The reason he stopped is that he simply has no place to go. What Vonnegut is describing is far more than depression. I don't mean to sound condescending but it's the sort of feeling that's hard to understand in your youth. Adolescents might like to THINK they know what's holding Nolte in that one spot, but it really requires maturity and the quickened sense of finiteness that only maturity can bring.

Remember Robert Frost's line about home being the place that when you go there they have to take you in? Well no place will take Nolte in.


Following the advice of a friend, I got myself this movie. I'm very fond of computers in general - hence why a 1995 film about identity theft on the Internet could not be left unseen. I had some bad echoes about it, but in the end, I wasn't so disappointed : the story, though classical, is kind of interesting and must have been really new back in the days when it was released in theatres. I was gladly surprised when I figured out that contrary to what we usually see, computer-performed actions are somehow realistic, as they use Windows 3.x and normal computers. The storytelling is median and not bothering the viewer. The end is typically American. The actors' performance is globally OK, Sandra Bullock usually annoys me with her 'oh my god why me' way to behave, but this time she seems to have controlled herself. I'd recommend that movie.


Another stinker from the PM Entertainment group, and thankfully one of their last.

'Firetrap' is effectively a very low budgeted remake of 'The Towering Inferno' I don't mind Low budget B Movies as long as some effort is put into them - there is no effort whatsoever in 'Firetrap' is stars Dean'Superman'Cain, who is an absolutely terrible actor, seriously he has all the acting abilities of a porn star, but he turns out to be the best actor here and that's saying something, the rest are just a bunch of no hopers given the boot from various daytime soaps. The special FX are just rubbish, shots showing the burning building from the ground are among the worst I've ever seen, the fire looks like someone scribbled an orange pen at the front of the camera. on top of that there is not one character you actually root for - you hate everyone and hope they all die well before the 90 minutes are up.

The script is embarrassing - The red herring's are signposted well in advance, someone else has mentioned this but 'The scene where the janitor fights off a blazing fire engulfing the building with his broom....hilarious, or same janitor going into a room marked 'Hazardous Material', Were these scenes supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? somehow I doubt it

The one good point and only one good point was there was a fair bit of action in amongst the daytime soap dramatics which kept my attention, but so little care was given to everything in the film, I can't recommend it - Watch 'The Towering Inferno' instead

3/10


This is a truly terrible film.

I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.

Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.

I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?

Please, please, please do not watch this film!


The romance of the movie, which is also its main theme, is good and nicely presented. However, the surrounding of the love story is too lyric, graphical and unrealistic. Even worse, the psychology of the main character is weird and incomprehensible, exactly like the end of the movie. Don't hesitate to watch this movie, if it attracted your interest, but don't expect too much of it either.


It came as no surprise to me that this was a very depressing and draining movie. After all, it's all about the impact of war on civilians AND it's by the 'king of depression', Ingmar Bergman. In other words, so many of Bergman's works delve deep into human misery and angst and so this movie seems not so extraordinary coming from this director.

Even though it is more difficult to watch, the last half of the movie offers perhaps more insight into the lower depths of humanity. That's because initially, the main characters (Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow) try to overcome adversity and are basically decent (though a bit stupid) people. However, as deprivation after deprivation occurs, they (especially Von Sydow) become less and less humane and more animalistic--doing ANYTHING in order to survive.

Fun to watch, NO FREAKING WAY! But, an interesting insight into human nature.

PS--1 thing I LOVED about this film is that it avoided a stupid movie chiche. When the couple sat down with the shopkeeper to drink a glass or wine, they FINISHED the wine completely! In most movies, they barely touch their drinks or leave them untouched. It drives me crazy, as I would NEVER leave a $4 alcoholic beverage without drinking it unless it tasted terrible or had a bug floating in it! BRAVO!


I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. 'The Perfect Word' is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. 'Fifi's Folly' only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. 'Broken Wing' (or 'Broken Wind' as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul.


This is an excellent film, with an extraordinary cast and acting. I was very disappointed with the Academy Awards when this didn't get the Oscar for best film and for best actress (Woopi Goldberg)... it certainly deserved it. In any case, take a look at it. i am sure you will enjoy it very much.


You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.

One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's 'Capturing the Friedmans' - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's 'Forbidden Lie$.' It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of 'Honor Lost,' the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.

What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this 'exposure' of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.

For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.

Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.

Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).

And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no 'happy ending' in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.


Dee Snider was inspired to do a two part song by a horror movie. This movie he wrote/directed/produced and starred in details the subjects from those songs (Horror-terria,from TwistedSister/ Stay Hungry). People have commented he must have a sick mind to put something like this out. I don't hear anybody making comments like that about Stephen King, Wes Craven,Dean Koontz,or in his own time Alfred Hitchcock. The movie profiles a modern Psychotic created by current trends in society. Personally I thought it was pretty well done from sheer imagination and inspiration,also without the benefit of a large budget and interviews with actual victims/criminals. This movie is perfect if you want something to give you nightmares and make you cringe about the possible and probable. IT COULD HAPPEN!!


This movie is based on the art of Frank Frazetta, the mythical fantasy illustrator. Some of the characters are straight out of his paintings (the Death Dealer being the best example). Surprisingly, the animation manages to keep the feeling of the original art. Bakshi is well known for his heavy use of rotoscope (the technique of tracing a live action sequence) and this film is no exception. However, since the subject of the movie is quite realistic (all characters are humans), this works pretty well.

But what I really like here is the plot: for once we have a story with interesting characters and nice action sequences, a really hideous villain and a gorgeous babe. This movie has the feeling of the best Conan comics, not surprisingly since Roy Thomas is the writer of the Marvel series of our favourite Cimmerian! This is a far cry from the crappy live action Conan, not to speak of all the B-movie of the genre.

Definitely recommended!


What can be said about one of the greatest N64 games ever? That the action is fast enough to keep even a seasoned FPS veteran sweating bullets quite literally? That the graphics are great, down to the explosions that everyone loves to see? That nothing is quite as fun as playing multiplayer mode, and shooting your friends and siblings in the back with submachine guns?

Very little beats Goldeneye 007. About the only thing missing was voice acting, and a bit more intelligence in the enemy soldiers. If you have an N64, and you like shooting people and things crossed with espionage, get a copy of this.


This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing this movie to 'Lawrence of Arabia' does no justice to both movies. 'The Wind and the Lion' levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me.


Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM


When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.

The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.

In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.

It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a 'keep your enemies closer' kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.

In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.

And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.

They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.

If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.

Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?


Such a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.

Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).

I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in 'The Rose.' But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this 'Gypsy' and that was with 'Rose's Turn.' But, by then it was too little, too late.

A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.

A huge, huge letdown.


This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.


This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen.

If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.

Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.

I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is 'Swim Fan' which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.

This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.

Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it...


I will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10


I just saw this at the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was the most wonderful movie - the best I've seen in quite a while. The enticing character of Isa is an open, exploring and (as remarked in the film) love-filled person - guilelessly portrayed by the beautiful Camille Natta. The accompanying music is soothing and transporting, a balm to the soul.

Each character seems to be conflicted in some way - and their interactions (w/ conflicts) make for a great story. The tale told by A.K. Hangal as the Old Man was most magically done - I wanted it to go on and on.

That Hari seemed to remember his 'place' throughout added get power to the story - a refreshing change to the bubble-headed plots of many modern writers.

All and all, an excellent film. Go see.


This is one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I love the backwoods feel of this movie. The movie is very realistic and believable. This seems to take place in another era, maybe the late 60's or early 70's. Henry Thomas works well with the young baby. Very moving story and worth a look.


Paul Naschy made a great number of horror films. In terms of quality, they tend to range from fairly good to unwatchable trash; and unfortunately, Horror Rises from the Tomb is closer to the latter. The plot is just your average story of a witch, wizard or (as is the case here) warlock, who is put to death - but not before swearing vengeance on those who did it...etc etc. We then get a séance and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon the executed warlock is up to no good again. The plot is slow, painfully boring and the film constantly feels pointless. The characters string out reams of diatribe and it never serves the film in any way whatsoever. Paul Naschy wrote the script, and if you ask me he should stick to acting because the dialogue is trite in the extreme, and only serves to make the film even more boring than it already is. Carlos Aured, who also directed Naschy in Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll and Curse of the Devil provides dull direction here, which likes the dialogue does nothing to help the film. Sometimes crap films like this have a certain charm about them; but Horror Rises from the Tomb doesn't even have that. This is a painfully boring film that has little or nothing in the way of interest.


*SPOILERS INCLUDED*

Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.

Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, 'Why did you do it, Gus?'

In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.

Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.

To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous 'bathroom scene' in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. 'See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!'

If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed.


First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker.


Actually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.