All Dogs Go to Heaven plays on the canine criminal underworld. The film is a delight for children with a comical and dark-but-satisfying and happy-ending storyline with plenty of song and dance. It features outcast Charlie, a fellow canine criminal who is murdered but returns from the dead. He meets a homeless human girl who looks up to him, and through this relationship, he realizes the meaning of life and self-sacrifice. This is a cute animation loved very much through my eyes as a child. I would highly recommend this film to children. I'm unsure about how adults would react to it. (I tried to watch it a few years ago on VHS, but those recordings don't last long, do they?)


I gave this a 2, and it only avoided a 1 because of the occasional unintentional laugh. The film is excruciatingly boring, and incredibly cheap. It's even worse if you know anything at all about the Fantastic Four.


Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.

Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.

The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp


I caught this film at a test screening. Was very surprised to find a really sweet and fun story. Well acted. Natasha Henstridge is the next Julia Roberts. The male lead was awsome. Very funny film. Takes place in the best locations in New York. Made me want to go there. I just saw 'You've got mail' I thought 'It Had To Be You' was a much better story. Fresher.

It was clean and great for whole family. I think it will do well. Audience I saw it with loved it. A definite recommend!


Not only have I read the book and watched the movie, but I was stationed on the USS John F Kennedy when they filmed this. Needless to say, Film crews and actors can be trying to people trying to do their jobs. Now, about the movie. As a career Navy man, I was pretty upset on how they showed life on board an Aircraft Carrier. I could pick apart the inaccuracies throughout the movie (anyone that has lived on a carrier could), but that would take pages. One scene that stands out in particular was when they were in the CIC (Combat Information Center) and they were watching a RADAR contact move across the screen. Each time the contact moved, it beeped. Unfortunately, that equipment doesn't beep like that (I was a technician on that equipment). The book was based upon fact, the movie wasn't. The follow on TV series was just as bad and the Navy finally realized that support for this series would just make them look bad. If you're a Navy person, watch this to see how a movie about carrier life is seen from the eyes of Hollywood. If your not a Navy person, watch Midway or Top Gun, at least those movies are entertaining and based upon fact.


I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning when I should have been asleep. This, in itself, was testimony that Deliverance was a spell-binding movie. I think Boorman did a wonderful job on directing this film. How expertly the early scene with the hill folk and the dueling banjos was done. It showed so well and early on how inherently reserved and simple the people of the area were. Case in point - near the end of the 'duel', the banjo-playing boy was smiling (loved his banjo), but when Drew tried to shake the boy's hand after the 'duel', the kid was too reserved to respond. The river trip never left you bored, for sure. The rape scene was brutal, but necessary to show just what the group was up against in this backwoods area of Georgia. I think Beatty's traumatic shock afterward was well done. Some have said he was pretty unaffected by the ordeal. I disagree - if you really payed attention, he was unresponsive during the entire action immediately following, in which Reynolds put the arrow through the attacker and they chased off the toothless guy. It was confusing when Ed killed the other guy later, at the top of the cliff. It almost appeared that the arrow was shot while Ed was curled up and expecting to die, but then you realize the arrow he had shot earlier had finally taken effect.

Anyway, a great movie, and I was wavering between an 8 and 9 on my vote, but after reading a message from a disgruntled voter who gave it a '1', I gave it a '10'. This individual's reasoning seemed based on personal bias, rather than an objective viewpoint, and his vote was obviously a non-correlating attempt to lower the rating.


I know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing.


This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.

Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.

This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk.

!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!


Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.

This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.

Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.


If you came here, it's because you've already seen this film and were curious what others had to say about it.

I feel for you, I *really* do. And I profusely apologize as a Canadian (because that's what we do) that this film ever had to cross your eyes, if only for a moment. I hear there is no cure for the retinal bleeding reported out of every dozen cases.

I, like everyone else, rented this movie believing it to be some stupid B-movie ripoff of Blade. I thought, 'sure I could use a good laugh at a stupid movie.' I'll give the creators of this film ONE positive comment about their 'creation': Thanks for removing the REC XX/XX/XX from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. I can see how that would have been a distraction from seeing this movie.

And for the record, I *saw* the movie, but did not watch it. The dialogue was incoherent and most of the scenes took place in my grandmother's trailer, I swear to God.

You know what? I'm not writing anymore about this. It's just too painful.


Poor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma instead!


i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films - chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink.


Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.


I happened to catch about the last 45 minutes of the movie,late night about 8 years ago. What a wild and funny 45 minutes.I was absolutely knocked out by chase-shoot-out at the end that takes place at night ,inside an old hotel that's being torn down with a wrecking ball....Incredible. I vaguely remember Stacy Keach ,stealing a cop car, faking being a cop and strong arming some winos....Wino to Keach'Hey,why Ya hasslin us?...Keach'It's my job'.You're correct. They don't make them like that anymore.Great movie. The golden70's...Hopefully it will see the light of day as a DVD along with other lost treasures...Hickey and Boggs being one such.


So I turned on the TV today at 1:00 PM on a Sunday, expecting to see crap and infomercials, and this great movie was just starting, didn't know what it was but drew me in almost immediately. The movie was excellent.

there were a couple of things that didn't make sense for one I don't get why the dead guy was talking about doing stuff to get yourself out of your bad situation, but then Jimmy doesn't really do anything except the basic stuff to survive that anyone would do in his situation, in other words it wasn't his initiative that got him out of his bad situation it was just luck, second I don't get the thing about the girl killing the the gangsters at the end, because the whole thing was partly casued by the thief people stealing Panda's money, and then the other thief kills Panda at the end, so they steal his money twice, and kill him how is that good?


This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss 'TRUE CRIMES' or 'THE HURRICANE'. My wife and me gave 8/10.


Ed Wood, perhaps the worst film maker of all time left us gems that are SO bad, they delight, being unintentionally funny and therefore charming and innocent.

James Lay, and his financial backers (Mom and Dad, it seems from the credits) have created in 'Dreamland' a film just as poorly made as any Ed Wood film, but lacking any charm or innocence. Dreamland simply stinks, and about the only good thing about this 90 minute waste of time is the certain knowledge that James Lay and his fellow perps will never make another picture again.

I must mention some of the dramatic lengths some of the crew took to avoid being associated with this horrible picture. I'm sure the production controller, once seeing the completed film, demanded to have his or her name changed in the credits to 'Donna Snartlebutt' and the accounting done by 'Brutus'. One can imagine 'Brutus' with his roll of 5 dollar bills paying the crew at the end of a shooting day.

I wont mention the many technical problems with this pathetic little videotape, but I must mention a few commentaries that compare this slag to the work of David Lynch. You know you have turned out a real stinker when you have your mom log into IMDb and post such astonishing BS - no one , save violent mental patients, could -ever- mistake 'dreamland' with -anything- produced by Lynch. What a horrific slight against Mr. Lynch and his work.

Go back to film school, Mr Lay.


I've read every book to date in the left behind series, and the movie hardly does any of them justice. Sure, I've seen worse movies, but this was incredibly disappointing. This movie would have made a good MST3K episode. The script was a horrible adaptation of the book, and it felt like the actors were reading their lines, instead of actually saying them. The characters were stiff and unlikeable. The effects were cheesy, and looked terribly fake. The ending was awful. First of all, it didn't even go all the way through the first book. Second, it made no sense. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was going on. It had to have been the most cheesy, film student-like ending I've ever seen in a movie. I'm upset that I actually paid money for this movie. If by some miracle, it does get wide release, they ought to totally overhaul it and let Hollywood take over. Those two wannabe film producers, and the wannabe director should leave movie making to the professionals.


This is one of those 'so bad it is good' films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.

However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.

Watcheable enough because of that.


I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. 'It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it,' she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.

*****SPOILER*****

Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.

*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.


When I think about TV movies, I always think of this film, I have watched it a few times on Sky Movies, it was terrible.

Its been a long time, since I have seen this film, was just browsing, and came across it on here :-S.

A microbiologist (Linda Flemming), goes on holiday, with her son (William Flemming), at this holiday resort kinda place, they meet up with Paul Johnson (taxi driver / owns a bar?), and Kathy Johnson.

Its like a weird romantic thing, William starts to fall for Kathy, and Paul falls for Linda.

Some guy passes out in a street, he has some mark on his arm, Joseph (Joseph was a deep sea diver, who on some dive, saw a light, or something, and converted to religion), says he will take care of this person, there is a gap in my memory, then there is a wide out break of the virus, I think Linda offers her help, to come up with a cure, Kathy gets infected (William notices a mark on Kathy's arm), with the virus, also does Joseph.

Paul says some lines to Joseph, then Joseph stumbles away, the next time you see Joseph, he is cured some how, that information is used to cure the infected, then there is a beach party, the end.


This is the only David Zucker movie that does not spoof anything the first of its kind. The funniest movie of 98 with Night at the Roxbury right behind But I did not think Theres something about mary was funny so that doesnt count except for the frank and beans thing he he. Dont listen to the critics especially Roger Ebert he does not know solid entertainment just look at his reviews.Anyway see it you wont be dissapionted


This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him?


Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of 'The Man You Love to Hate' and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.


Planet Earth has suffered a terrible environmental disaster so humanity now survives underground split in to different religious cults . What caused the catastrophe ? I have no idea ? why is humanity split in to different ecclesiastical factions ? I have no idea . Since the surface of the Earth can no longer support human life how are the humans able to grow crops in order to feed the population ? I have no idea . What sort of producer thought this screenplay deserved to receive funding ? I have no idea

SHEPHERD is one of these films that creeps up late at night on cable channels . The sort of film where you consult the IMBb to see if it has any merits . The number of people who've commentated on SHEPHERD on this page hasn't yet reached double figures and this is a film that was released nine years ago . Perhaps the people who have never seen it are the lucky ones ?

As for the rest of the plot it's very routine . Grumpy former cop Boris Dakota whose wife and child died several years previously meets a woman and her child and it's up to him to save their lives , almost like a futuristic western . Throw in a former wrestler who now runs the God channel , a fascist Christian bloke who's trying to snuff out Boris , a ventriloquist , some T&A for the sake of it and you've got a mess of a film . I guess after seeing this Neil Marshall's DOOMSDAY is possibly a masterwork of cinema in comparison


I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons:

1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: ' I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo ' and ' I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed '

2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won

Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers

Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the ' minor ' Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a ' minor ' Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves

Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category

Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors

Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn

Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night

Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR

Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off

What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts


where do we go from here? that is the overriding question of this film. And make no mistake, 'mainly ETC.', the 2003 effort from director john jansen, asks far more questions than it answers, but none so poignantly or so powerfully as this one.

much of the the film plays like a running conversation between you and your college drinking buddies, and I'm sure many of the questions raised by the main characters you'll recognize from your own evenings of drunken debauchery. however, one of the many beauties of this film is that we are rarely given an answer. Questions are raised  everything from the mundane to the profound  but jansen skillfully forces his audience to examine and answer these questions ourselves, with little to no help from the characters.

side 1 opens with an increasingly complex and beautifully orchestrated arrangement of non-linear segments to introduce us to the main characters. We meet them on the morning of april 8, 1994  the day kurt cobain committed suicide. And it is the death of cobain, and the journey to his wake two days later in seattle, that serve as the backdrop for the film. In exploring cobain's life, music, and death, the characters attempt - with varying degrees of success - to understand and come to terms with their own lives.

there are some aspects of the film that are what you might expect from a low-budget indie film: the performances range from decidedly mediocre to outstanding, with the strongest performances coming from jessica scott (holly) and noel wood (daniel); some of the dialogue is admittedly a bit stiff, but never completely strays into the unreal; and there are some minor sound problems, particularly once we get on the road, that make it difficult at times to follow the action on screen.

but despite its shortcomings, 'mainly ETC.' is a solid, deeply affecting piece of cinema. amid moments of haunting poignancy, laugh-out-loud humor, and intimate turmoil, jansen deftly weaves all of the character threads together and illuminates their own struggles while at the same time making them accessible and engaging for us. and because we can see reflections of ourselves in one or more of these characters, we can identify with the questions and issues they're struggling with, and we're able to look back and remember where we were on that day in 1994 when for many people the world changed.

while jansen takes credit for the writing, editing, and direction of the film, kudos must be given to his photography as well. With an uncanny eye and amazing ability to capture and draw us into each of the characters' worlds, jansen managed to produce shot after shot after shot that stuck with me long after the credits rolled.

And no review of this film would be complete without a nod to the amazing soundtrack. the music in this film is used to amazing effect; at times subtly underscoring the action, at other times taking center stage, but never getting in the way or deteriorating into kitschy music video. the soundtrack plays like the ultimate greatest hits, though i suspect that label would probably not sit very well with the director.

the new double DVD archive edition offers some deleted scenes, trailers, music videos, and a cobain documentary. the deleted scenes offer some insight into the making of the film through alternate opening and closing sequences, and it's certainly a treat to have the rare and beautiful Raining Kind video. the cobain documentary is fine, if a bit worse for wear, and certainly more extensive documentaries are available for the hardcore fans. conspicuously absent is a director commentary, and i can't help but wonder if jansen has plans to re-release this at some point with that tasty tidbit attached.

suffice to say that the next time you're looking for a strong piece of work from a talented filmmaker, I recommend you get on board.


I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: 'Most men would _pay_ to be in your position'. To which he replies 'But this is not _my_ choice'. OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the 'suspension of disbelief' of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.


Imagine the most depressing winter you will never experience: grey instead of white, no snow fights and certainly no wonderlands. This is the Finland as portrayed by 'Frozen Land'. This film follows a bunch of people whose lives are oddly linked to each others' with results beyond anyone's nightmares. Yes, most characters are flawed in the way that only celluloid characters can - completely annoying and frustrating to watch, yet for some reason you wish for their luck to turn.

With some randomly placed humour and a cast that groups together Finland's somewhat mainstream faces, Frozen Land offers a glimpse of the Finnish mentality that despite its depressing downward spirals manages to restore some faith in humanity. More so than Kaurismäki, to say the least.


OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.

The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason.

The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.

My ratings:

funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100


My reaction to this remake of 'The Italian Job' is probably hopelessly mixed up with the events occurring in my life when I saw it; This is the first movie I saw after I had just landed a job after 8 months of unemployment and going back to school for retraining. Money was still tight, but I no longer had to choose between seeing a movie in the theaters and paying bills (or eating lunch), and the sense of relief and gratitude I was feeling at the time was enormous. In consequence, my enjoyment of 'Italian Job' was probably far out of proportion to its actual worth.

Still, I picked it up used on DVD a few weeks ago and watched it again, and I still enjoyed it immensely. I have never seen the original (though I have heard it is an absolute classic), but its modern day counterpart is eminently watchable if you have a taste for modern day production values applied to older films plots and themes.

What initially won me over to this movie was the soundtrack - IMO Don Davis writes some of the most supple, textured and aurally pleasing soundtracks around. IJ opens with a sly, witty, pulsing arrangement that combines strings, guitar harmonics, brush work and quiet moments - it won me over completely from the opening seconds. And the whole movie is like this - I haven't heard this kind of ringing, chiming, pulsing soundtrack music since Stewart Copeland left the Police and started doing soundtracks for movies like 'Rumble Fish'. There are at least a dozen irresistibly scored motifs in here, along with some pop song remakes that range from 'all right' to 'inspired'. For people to whom the soundtrack is important, this movie is a delight.

On to the movie: I can take or leave Mark Wahlberg, but he's okay here as the leading man, and the movie doesn't ask him to do anything he can't do well. He's the weakest 'major' actor in the film, but that's because the rest of supporting cast is so strong, especially Donald Sutherland in a bit part. Mos Def, Jason Steadham, Ed Norton, Seth Green and Charlize Theron all turn in solid, fat-free performances. Norton seems to mostly be phoning it in (rumor has it that he didn't really want to be in the film), but he's still a natural even at 1/2 power. My one quibble with the casting and acting is with the character 'Wrench', who seems to be a male model pretending to be an actor. His part seems to be shoehorned into the movie, and he has little chemistry with the rest of the cast (although you can blame some of that on the size of the part and the 'late walk on' nature of the character). If I were a cynical sort,I would wonder who the actor slept with to get put into this movie in such a supernumerary role? Nah, never happen...

Production values, camera work, stunts, plot...everything cooks along quite nicely and Gray and his production crew pull things together pretty seamlessly (with the exception of the 'Wrench' character, see above).

The dialog has a nice, light touch that rewards your indulgence, and there are several satisfying major and minor plot payoffs along the way. (My favorite moment - when Norton's character tells Wahlberg's character that he's just lost the element of surprise. Wahlberg proceeds to cold cock Norton with a right cross, and then asks him, 'Were you surprised??' Hmmm, maybe you had to be there...)

Of course the movie requires a certain level of 'suspension of disbelief' to work, but if you just relax and go along with it (and don't think too hard about the mechanics of cracking a safe underwater, or the likelihood of anyone being able to successfully hack and manipulate LA traffic via a laptop, etc), you'll have a fun ride.

'The Italian Job': it's lightweight summer fluff, but it's very good for what it is, and it doesn't try to be anything else. It isn't good enough for an '8' but I'd give it a '7.5'.


Despite its low-key release in this country, and its apparent disregard in other countries (the 'R' rating in the States can't have helped - honestly, just because HBC uses the C-word!), this is actually a fine piece of work. The sentimentality does occasionally threaten to choke it, but it's overcome by the playing of the two leads.

It's easy to win plaudits just because you're playing a physical or mental cripple (Daniel Day-Lewis, Geoffrey Rush, Dustin Hoffman, etc.), and Helena Bonham-Carter may not quite capture the physical degradation of MND, but her vocal stretching and ruthless emotional drive compensate entirely. In fact, almost all her performance is conducted through her eyes (and what eyes!). This is an intelligent turn from an actress who is rapidly undoing her English Rose reputation, and emerging as a figure of some stature. Awards must surely follow, though not, alas, for this fine performance.

Branagh, one feels, has never quite given his best on film (except possibly 'Hamlet', and there his playing was diluted by the large cast). Here, though, he tops his other appearances, playing to the hilt a self-loathing, unstable, ultimately lovable guy with a subtlety he hasn't always displayed, and exhibiting both intelligence and depth. In short, we believe him, just as much as we could NOT believe him as Frankenstein, as the priest in 'The Proposition', as the lawyer in 'The Gingerbread Man', even as Andrew in 'Peter's Friends'. This is surely his finest performance yet - so why could he not produce the goods much earlier?

As a film, it looks more like a television offering, and without its stars it probably wouldn't amount to very much. But it's been a pleasure to see this pair perform their socks off like this, and I eagerly await more from them (though not 'Love's Labour's Lost'...). 8 out of 10, but Branagh and HBC get 10 out of 10.


After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.

I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.

IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!

All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.

One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.

This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.

Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.

To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.

You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.

Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.


A good movie for horse enthusiasts and most others. It's a horse racing movie, and it's a 'little man gets his chance' movie, and it's a 'how far would you go?' movie. Walter Mattau once again proves his adaptability as an actor. He fits right in as Lloyd Bourdelle, a Louisiana Cajun horse bum. This movie gives you a rare screen glimpse of Lousiana Cajun horse drag racing. He has a young quarter horse who is a top racing prospect. 'had nothing but a filling station and a good horse.' The Bourdelles seize the opportunity to make it big by taking the horse, Shadow, to Ruidoso, New Mexico, to get ready to run in the All-American Futurity. But how far will Lloyd go to win the fame and fortune? Also memorable from this movie are scenes of Lloyd spitting tobacco juice and waiting for his truck to start.


The warmest, most engaging movie of its genre, Those Lips, Those Eyes, made me smile and cry as it reminded me of the work it takes to pursue a dream and the pain of disappointment. Hulce and Langella are superb and the story seems to write itself. A brilliant screenplay by David Shaber (one of my favorites! - see The Warriors and Nighthawks for more...) and beautiful sets filmed on location (I think) at the actual summer theater in which the story takes place. You can't see this movie and not want to drop everything and get into the theater! Please check this video out if you can find it.


This opens with the company credits informing us it`s by World International Network . I knew I`d seen this company credit before but couldn`t remember where , but knew it was at the start of a really bad movie I`d seen so I seriously thought about changing channels , only thing was I`d seen every film on the other channels which is one of the problems of being an IMDB reviewer . What the hell I thought it won`t really matter if WANTED is good or bad because I`ll still be able to review it for this site.<br /><br />As I expected WANTED wasn`t all that good . It`s a plot I`d seen so many times ( Too many times ) before involving a fugitive on the run , a bit like THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series without the shirt ripping . Jimmy crosses the mob in an entirely contrived way and goes on the run and in an entirely contrived manner finds himself working at a catholic reform school . Have you noticed an oft used description in the last sentence ? ' Entirely contrived ' is the answer . Let me repeat for the hard of thinking that this is an entirely contrived film where everything relies on coincidence . Another problem I had was the reform school run by the church - it`s far too compassionate and kind , I`m led to believe these type of establishments make Alcatraz look like a country club , I`m saying this is a fact but when the head priest looks like the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld you do feel there`s a large amount of sugar coating going on .

To be honest despite the ridiculous plot twists etc WANTED isn`t really a bad thriller though it`s a terribly good one either . I never really had the urge to switch it off no matter how contrived it became which is an under hand compliment to the movie


I watched the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.

I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.

Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.

Overall avoid this crappy movie.

Save some money.


I think this movie is amazing but there is one problem. there is one song that i want to find but cannot find it. it starts on about 18 minutes just after the coach has said 'what are u the runt of the family', and then looks at the fat kid takes his hat off then he says go, the song that starts there, i would like to know what it is? Does any 1 no email me please or add a comment.It Starts Zaga Zow, Ziga Zow something along those lines. I just think it is an amazing dance track i would love to have that song so that i could use it in my break dancing lessons. It starts when they are jumping and running over the orange fast stepper things which are used in football training to help you run faster


Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie

Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.

This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.

Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget

I give it 3/10


This movie is a re-write of the 1978 Warren Beatty movie, 'Heaven Can Wait', but it is written for the stand-up comedic style of Mr Rock. The premise remains the same: Lance Barton, (Rock) is taken before his life time is up and works a deal with God's representative, Mr King, to come back to earth as someone else. As in Beatty's movie; he chooses the murdered Charles Wellington, a rich white man, all because he fancies Sontee Jenkins (Regina King) who happens to turn up at Wellington's house during the murder. The role of Mrs Wellington and her lover suffers in this remake and the idea to turn an aged white multi-millionaire into a stand up black comedian who tries to woo Sontee simply does not work. Also the intercuts used to show Rock as Wellington and then as the real 'white' Wellington, fail miserably. Improvements could have been made to the original Beatty plot - which in itself did not masterfully portray the life-after-death idea - but they certainly were not to be found in 'Down To Earth'.


The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to restore the image, but alas this has not been done.

A minor quibble has taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'.


In a year when 'Singin' in the Rain' and 'High Noon' were released, this overstuffed turkey somehow won the Oscar for Best Picture. Half the film is nothing more than circus performances. The other half is soap opera and melodrama. Heston and Wilde both overact, although they are models of restraint compared to the annoying Hutton. Playing a self-centered trapeze artist, Hutton acts like an overzealous high school student in a badly produced school play. Grahame is the only cast member to turn in a decent performance. DeMille has no interest in telling a good story, only in creating an overlong spectacle, not matter how dull.


Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking 'surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on', and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far.

The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!

Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't.

Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.

There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.


I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.

Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.

The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.

And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.

The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went 'Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!', must have been out for the evening.

Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...


Sunny, a cocktail waitress in the D.C. area, is a bit dim, to put in mildly. She drives an old clunker and rents a tiny room from a gay male couple. However, she saves the life of a prominent Arab, by taking a bullet in the behind that was meant for the official. She charms the national press with her zany remarks and her sweet looks. Sniffing an opportunity, Presidential aides get her installed in the protocol department for the U.S. government. Even then, she messes things up at times, but she tries hard and learns a lot. She even grabs the romantic attention of a State department official. But, is there another sinister plot in the making, involving an Arab man who wishes to take another wife? A blonde one? LOL, LOL, LOL. This movie features Goldie as pretty as a picture and as dumb 'as a fox', as they say. Sunny learns her way around the jungle of the U.S. government very, very well. She even has important things to say about honesty and the lack of it in her protocol surroundings. Perhaps, the Arab community would be less than thrilled with this work, but for those who like to laugh, rent this today.


This is a comedy version of 'Strangers on a Train'. It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the 'moma' all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.


I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.


'In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as 'Mortal Kombat.' So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the 'Poison Clan' who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or 'venoms' (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from.'


I was aware of Man of the Year's critical pans and unremarkable gross, but was prepared to give the film the benefit of the doubt because I know good pictures can fall under the radar during the crowded release schedule of the Fall months.

What I found out was that the movie is surprisingly uninspired. Surprising is an understatement considering Barry Levinson's gift for political satire (demonstrated in Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams' obvious comic gifts. Robin Williams, in fact, is mysteriously underused. On the 'Making Of' featurette that comes with the DVD, Barry Levinson talked about how sometimes he let Robin Williams improvise off the script, like it was some naughty secret of his. Umare you really that much of a moron, Barry Levinson? Whenever you have Robin Williams in your film and want to use him for his comic abilities (basically, every movie he's been in other than Insomnia or One Hour Photo), don't cage him within a script. Let him ad-lib whatever he wants because he is the funnier than anything anyone else can write for him and his uncontained comic rants can instantly raise the bar on any mediocre movie like RV or Patch Adams. What I found even more baffling in his failure to make use of Robin Williams was that back in 1987, Levinson used this exact formula to perfection in Good Morning Vietnam, injecting Robin Williams' bursts of comic zaniness into a war picture to make a resounding political piece.

So the film isn't as much of a laugh-fest as it could be and feels awkwardly lost in its tone. If the film had potential to work as anything, it might have made one of those thrillers from the mid-'90s in the style of The Pelican Brief, The Fugitive, or one of those Jack Ryan films. Its plot centered around an employee at a Silicon Valley company uncovering a glitch in a system that reveals that the country elected the wrong president and the efforts of the CEOs to eliminate her before the secret gets out, so if you replaced Robin Williams with some Harrison-Ford-type actor, or perhaps even Harrison Ford himself, added a couple more explosions, and maybe that's where the movie was trying to go. I'll never really know and it's not worth it to try to find out.


'Icky Flix' is an excellent starting point for anybody with even a vague interest in the Residents. Most of their classic videos are present (although 'Earth vs. Flying Saucers' and 'Don't Be Cruel' are curiously missing), and the 'concentrates' of their various CD-ROM projects offer tantalizing glimpses into how the orbed ones have been spending their time since they realized MTV was no longer putting them in heavy rotation (or, indeed, showing videos period).

All of the videos on this compilation feature striking imagery and idiosyncratic music (with a choice of the original tracks and newly-recorded ones). And two of them -- 'The Third Reich 'n' Roll' and 'One Minute Movies' -- are in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. Check out this DVD and find out why.


Great movie -I loved it. Great editing and use of the soundtrack. Captures the real feeling of Indian life, yet we can all relate. A well chose cast with some great characters. The movie develops all the characters so that you real care about them all and you feel like you know them. The use of the Indian music and drums in some of the soccer scenes is great and the direction really works as everyone comes off as real and natural. You just can't help but to root for Jess in this film! The acting was really good, even the tomboyish walk and body posture of both leading ladies is very convincing as a someone that played lots of soccer.


I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV


(mild spoilers)

This movie was filthy and stupid. It could have done well without the constant humping and nude sex. It was also very profane. I think that they had a good story developing, but they messed up the whole thing by overdoing it.


Excellent P.O.W. adventure, adapted by Eric Williams from his own book (a paperback copy of which forms part of my father's library) that was inspired by true events; it may well be the first film of its kind and, therefore, has a lot to answer for  not just similarly stiff-upper-lipped examples such as ALBERT, R.N. (1953; which I'll be watching presently), THE COLDITZ STORY (1955) and DANGER WITHIN (1959) but higher-profile releases from the other side of the Atlantic, namely STALAG 17 (1953) and THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963). This, then, sets the basis pretty solidly: British soldiers interned in a German camp devise an ingenious plan of escape, borrowing a page from Greek legend  burrowing from under a vaulting horse used during physical exercise and in full view of their captors! Actually, the film is neatly split into two halves: the first deals with the slow process of digging the tunnel, culminating in the escape itself, while the latter stages depict their fortunes outside the camp as they try to make it to neutral Sweden. Typically of these British films, the cast showcases several established (Leo Genn), current (Anthony Steel) and up-and-coming (Peter Finch, David Tomlinson and Bill Travers) stars, to say nothing of innumerable reliable character actors (Anthony Dawson, Bryan Forbes, Michael Goodliffe and Walter Gotell). The three leads/escapees are Genn, Steel and Tomlinson: while the first two stick together, the latter goes his own way  only to run into the others on reaching safety. As can be expected, the narrative involves plenty of suspense and excitement; as with most male-centered P.O.W. sagas, too, female interest is kept to the barest minimum. Director Lee didn't have a lengthy career  with this and the somewhat similar (albeit with a change of both setting and viewpoint) A TOWN LIKE ALICE (1956) his most noteworthy achievements  but he certainly milked every gripping situation in this case (even if, reportedly, delays in filming saw Lee quitting his post prematurelyleaving producer Ian Dalrymple with the task of tying up loose ends!). Anyway, worth special mention is the exquisite lighting (particularly during night-time sequences) throughout.


Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: 'Merry Christmas to everyone!' Other times I almost fell asleep.

The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.

I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...


When The Spirits Within was released, all you heard from Final Fantasy fans was how awful the movie was because it didn't seem like Final Fantasy. This is a different story, for better or worse. The familiar settings, characters, music, story, and over the top action scenes should thrill fans of the original game. The problem is that it just isn't a good movie in its own right.

The direction during the fight scenes is often sloppy, switching camera angles ridiculously fast in an attempt to make the action seem more frenetic, but only serving to make the scenes look jumbled and confusing.

The CG itself is exceptional, but I can't say it's the best I've ever seen since Spirits Within had much more detail on the characters, although I must admit that Advent Children's characters moved much more naturally.

The plot is virtually a black hole. It's a giant deus ex machina designed solely to bring Sephiroth back for one last fight. Old characters reappear, but serve no real purpose other than to please fans. Character development is nonexistent and the film does nothing at all to resolve any of the plot threads left hanging after the game's end. But it's packed with neat-looking fight scenes with magic, summons, and limit breaks, which is probably what fans wanted anyway.

In the end, Advent Children is a very flashy, but totally brainless action flick that serves more as a side story for Final Fantasy VII than a real sequel.

By the way, don't think you're hurting my feelings by voting Not Useful. It just makes me feel superior knowing that fanboys/fangirls resent my objectivity so greatly.


This is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen - from start to finish it was perfect in timing, atmosphere, punch lines, background music, fighting sequences and every other possible aspect you can think of. To be absolutely honest i find this movie as funny as their (Rik & Ade's) sitcom 'Bottom' - maybe even funnier. I laughed constantly throughout the whole movie and can only recommend seeing this film... However, if you watch it without knowing (or liking?) the type of comedy Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson has done before, you might not think it's funny at all - but I REALLY can't understand those who dislike it - THIS IS HUMOUR FOLKS!!! (People getting hit with frying pans, guys running around wearing red rubber lingerie, green vomit filling the hallways, guys getting kicked in the b******s and getting candlesticks in the eyes - HOW can this NOT be funny???) 10/10


This film gives new meaning to the term 'uneven', giving us a few intriguing characterizations offset by an awkwardly realized plot that relies on a few well-placed stingers to deliver the majority of the thrills.

The plot concerns a group of men who harbor a secret that has caused a curse to be visited on them in the form of a ghostly female apparation that causes death. She also may be seducing their sons.

It is quite a spectacle to have all the notable veteran actors together in one film, but unfortunately they're not very convincing, particularly the scene where Melvyn Douglas goes off the deep end begging the others to listen to him. It's no shock then that the actors who play these same characters in their youth are terrible, especially the giggling Ricky. They deliver the worst 'gee-aren't-we-all-drunk' scene I've ever watched.

The movie has a few saving graces, namely Dick Smith's great ghost makeups (however misplaced they are in this film), and Alice Krige's fascinating performance as Alma/Eva. I've never read the novel that this film was taken from, but I intend to after reading some of the other reviews on this page. You don't have to have read the book, however, to realize that this is only a shadow of the original tale. There is a good story here, but it seems lost somewhere, amid exposition that shows the men having nightmares over and over again and making unsubtle references to the secret they all share.

As it stands, it appears as if there was about half an hour of footage removed from this print, particularly near the climax. After all...how is it that Fred Astaire manages to mount an excavation of the pond so quickly? What did Gregory Bate and the kid have to do with Eva? And while we're at it...what the hell was she, anyway? Why did letting her out of the car cause the apparition to disappear? If it was an apparition, how could it have sex with two men and have them not know?

These and other questions will never be answered, at least not by this film. Unless some restored footage is discovered somewhere, it will probably forever remain a curiosity with some oozing makeup, bizarre sex scenes and nudity, and a few attractive performances.


I'm just starting to explore the so far wonderful world of monsieur Ozon. I've seen only 4 films so far, and with the last one in the row it hit me that all of them were in fact about lonely women and their actions. Not a single non-lonely female character out of 12, and all of them bring heavy impact of surroundings.

This film is probably the only one (out of four) where this impact is for good.

The gay theme is an almost standard part of background for Ozon's films, so it doesn't grab the accent (although the looks of the characters might). Watch for the feelings, not for their objects.

Very nice and fleeting, truly like a summer romance, and while being a relaxation to thought and mind, it gives some food for the soul.


Worry not, Disney fans--this special edition DVD of the beloved Cinderella won't turn into a pumpkin at the strike of midnight. One of the most enduring animated films of all time, the Disney-fide adaptation of the gory Brothers Grimm fairy tale became a classic in its own right, thanks to some memorable tunes (including 'A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes,' 'Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo,' and the title song) and some endearingly cute comic relief. The famous slipper (click for larger image) We all know the story--the wicked stepmother and stepsisters simply won't have it, this uppity Cinderella thinking she's going to a ball designed to find the handsome prince an appropriate sweetheart, but perseverance, animal buddies, and a well-timed entrance by a fairy godmother make sure things turn out all right. There are a few striking sequences of pure animation--for example, Cinderella is reflected in bubbles drifting through the air--and the design is rich and evocative throughout. It's a simple story padded here agreeably with comic business, particularly Cinderella's rodent pals (dressed up conspicuously like the dwarf sidekicks of another famous Disney heroine) and their misadventures with a wretched cat named Lucifer. There's also much harrumphing and exposition spouting by the King and the Grand Duke. It's a much simpler and more graceful work than the more frenetically paced animated films of today, which makes it simultaneously quaint and highly gratifying.


I love Seth Green. His appearances on THat 70s' Show is always worth watching but last night, I felt the show needed to overhauled. Four single young guys inherit a New York City apartment that most of us would die for. The grandmother must have been an heiress to have such space in the first place. So I felt the need for realism should have been brought out. Anyway the plot about four best friends getting this apartment was not believable. I would have been thrilled if they had to move in with one of their parents which would have provided great humor and dysfunctional about the show's set up. There did not seem to be much humor in it. I am only watching it because it falls before My Name is Earl on a winning Thursday night. I think they should go back, scrap this series, and start over. We need more family involved series. How about Seth and his friends move in with his wacky parents in the suburbs after a fire burns their place down. THey could have Dabney Coleman play the father and Christine Estabrook, play the mother and dysfunctional siblings. The list of possibilities with somebody like Seth Green are endless and the network is blowing it.


I recently visited the Magic Kingdom as an adult with my mom, her best friend and my adult sister. Disney World is often mistakenly perceived as a place for just children, but when you see quality shows like Mickey's Philharmagic, you realize that the magic of Disney is for everyone! It was such a great show that we left the theater and turned around and got in line again. And then a third time. It was absolutely breathtaking. I would encourage anyone who goes to Disney World to check out this show, which is not just a show but a world wind, fun filled ride with Donald as he once again lets his temper get him in trouble!


I rated this a ten just because I find it so impressive what a single eighteen year old can do with a video camera. It's no epic but it's plenty engaging and I was never bored. If tens of millions of dollars can go into the countless bad films that are poured out en masse, then give this director the same amount of money and see what happens. I know I'll be lining up at the local cinema for her first major release. Damn good job, and well worth the money. What a script! It might be low budget but it beats the hell out of half the major pictures I've seen lately. Nanavati knows how to tell a story, both in writing and on screen. Serious kudos to her, can't wait to see more.


It's frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not 'as good' as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this 'something,' which the director probably calls 'adaptation.'

All the beautiful philosophy that asks 'is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?' is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. François Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.


This film offers many delights and surprises. When Achille and Philippa beautifully sing a duet from 'Don Giovanni' that perfectly describes their situation in the movie, you appreciate the subtle layers of this excellent film. The story unfolds in 18th century Jutland and the use of period music played on period instruments is just one more fine touch. You share General Loewenhielm's exquisite joy in his partaking of the Cailles en Sarcophage even though you are just watching a movie - but you do wish for just a small sample to savor.

Babette is an artist whose medium is food. Perhaps no other art form allows the artist to share her creations so directly.

The main theme of this movie, the potential that the sharing of food has to transform how people see each other and how they see the world, is much the same as the theme of 'Chololat,' but 'Babette's Feast' does not hit you over the head with its message. The townspeople are conservative puritans, but not exaggeratedly oppressive. You come to understand and respect them and ultimately to appreciate their humanity.

Many issues are raised for you to reflect on: the nature of art, the contemplation of paths taken and paths not taken, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical, the effect of environment on behavior, the taking of life to give life, among others.

The only disappointment for me was General Loewenhielm's speech delivered at the climax of the meal. I expected deep heartfelt observations, but I got some vague mystical ramblings. The speech had such a minimal impact that I hardly remember it.

But this understated film leaves a lasting impression. The warmth it generates is in contrast to its austere backdrop. You will leave the theater wanting to go out and dance under the stars.


I've seen this movie a few times and with each viewing I still feel the excitement of embarking on a journey and the frustration of trying to overcome the barriers that impede the path. It's more than a mere desire of finding home; it's about the very basic human spirit of finding one's way in the world, of overcoming despair, of facing the character foibles that deter our goals. Underlying these human endeavors is the challenge to reconsider the origin of life. While this film is imbued with serious ideas, it has just enough comedic lines to leave the viewers hopeful. It is surprisingly funny. The execution of the story line is excellent! This is all packaged with visually engaging animation. A must see.


This is possibly one of my favorite films. It tells the tale of a girl named Gerda (Chelsea Hobbs) who lost her mother at a very young age, so has been bought up by her father. She falls in love with the bell boy named Kai. However, on her birthday the snow queen (Bridget Fonda) comes the the hotel which her father owns and kidnaps Kai. Gurda then goes after Kai, and follows him through the four seasons in an attempt to rescue him.

I thought that this was an excellent adaption of the story with great performances from all the cast. It has wonderful special effects and the story fits together very well and is easy to follow. I think that it is a great film for all the family to enjoy. I have watched it every time t has been on since it came out and have never tired of it which is why I have given it a 10!


Well, I am delighted to hear a rumor that this may finally be issued on DVD. When that will happen, I don't know, but I will grab it when it's released.

In my humble opinion, this is Errol Flynn's most entertaining film, especially when 'Gentleman Jim' Corbett's ring career begins in the film. Then it goes from a good film to a great one.

Few people could play arrogant men and still come off as a likable good guy as well as Flynn could and this film is a perfect example of that. Reportedly, this was Flynn's favorite role and I believe that. You can just sense how much fun he was having here. Ward Bond also looks like he was really enjoying his role playing the famous John L. Sullivan. Bond, too, was never better.

There is just the right amount of action boxing scenes in here and they are pretty well done, too. Corbett's family is fun to watch, too, as they carry on in the stands during Jim's matches. Out of the arena, Corbett's family's constant arguments and yelling can get a little too loud and annoying but they set the stage for a fitting conclusion.

And speaking of the conclusion, Sullivan's speech to Corbett after the big fight is very touching and the highlight of the film. Some mean-spirited critics (Variety, for example) didn't like that ending nor the fact that much of the film is fictionalized but - duh - most films are fictionalized, like it or not. And, in this case, it made for a nice story and nice ending. (In real life, Corbett was a very soft-spoken true gentleman, not anything like Flynn's portrayal, but Flynn still make him a good guy.)

This is one of the more entertaining classic films I have ever watched and I eagerly wait for the DVD.


Hynkel, dictator of Tomania, is a spoiled child who becomes angry when he cannot gets what he really wants... And what he simply wants is nothing less than the world...

In one of the extraordinary scenes of Chaplin art, Hynkel performs a ballet with the 'world' which bursts when he thinks he has it in his grasp...

Chaplin also has some biting words on war and war films... In a scene at the beginning of the movie, which takes place during World War I, the Tomanian messenger crashes the plane and thinks... He is about to die... In a state of delirium, he begins to say ridiculous words... The empty double-talk continue ascending into a brilliant take off on all the heroic death scenes of War films...

In another scene when he becomes a fugitive in the Jewish ghetto and assumes command of the resistance fomenting rebellion among the old men, he plans to kill the dictator... One of the group must kill the ruthless conqueror of Austerlich... Whoever is chosen will naturally die, but his heroic death will be rewarded and his name will shine like a star in Tomanian history...

The sequence in which he and four other characters eat cream cakes containing coins to determine which shall sacrifice his life to murder the dictator is a bitter hilarity filled with great fear...

For all its disappointing shortcomings, 'The Great Dictator' is still a significant movie for the ironic tones of the film adding something that neither Chaplin nor anymore else could have given it: the irony of history... The necessity to murder Hynkel presages the assassination attempt against Hitler by his generals... The force of the original satire is only surpassed by history's imitation of art...

With a splendid sequence like the duck-shooting accident which leads to the dictator being mistaken for the humbly Jewish barber and vice versa, 'The Great Dictator' is Chaplin's first talking movie... This time 'Charles' and not 'Charlie,' wanting to say more through his movie and not through an amusing comedy, the last in which he uses his celebrated 'Tramp Character.'


I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs.


Revenge is the theme of this Denzel Washington thriller that offers its share of action, mayhem, murder and grisly bloodletting. The essentials are a bodyguard's search and destroy mission as his charge, young Dakota Fanning, is kidnapped from school, which is exactly what Washington was hired to prevent. The Mexico City locations are as chaotic as the storyline moves towards its predictable, violent conclusion, with plot twists along the way. Washington, a former CIA operative with a drinking problem, gets a good reference from a former fellow agent which sets in motion the plot's outline. Washington and Fanning have a great chemistry between them and after a troublesome beginning, the bodyguard and his charge become the best of friends. Christopher Walken, Rachel Ticotin, Radha Mitchell, Giancarlo Giannini and Mickey Rourke comprise the good cast in support of the two stars.


Some people drift through life, moving from one thing or one person to the next without batting an eye; others latch on to a cause, another person or a principle and remain adamant, committed to whatever it is-- and figuratively or literally they give their word and stand by it. But we're all different, `Made of different clay,' as one of the characters in this film puts it, which is what makes life so interesting. Some people are just plain crazy, though-- and maybe that's the way you have to be to live among the masses. Who knows? Who knows what it takes to make things-- life-- work? Writer/director Lisa Krueger takes a shot at it, using a light approach to examine that thin line between being committed-- and how one `gets' committed-- and obsession, in `Committed,' starring Heather Graham as a young woman who is adamant, committed, obsessive and maybe just a little bit crazy, too. Her name is Joline, and this is her story.

	Admittedly, Joline has always been a committed person; in work, relationships, in life in general. She's a woman of her word who sticks by it no matter what. And when she marries Carl (Luke Wilson), it's forever. The only problem is, someone forgot to tell Carl-- and 597 days into the marriage, he's gone; off to `find' himself and figure it all out. When Joline realizes he's not coming back, she refuses to give up on him, or their marriage. Maybe it's because of that `clay' she's made of. Regardless, she leaves their home in New York City and sets off to find him, which she does-- in El Paso, Texas, of all places. But once she knows where he is, she keeps her distance, giving him his `space' and not even letting him know she's there. She considers Carl as being in a `spiritual coma,' and it's her job to keep a `spiritual vigil' over him until he comes to his senses. And while she watches and waits, her life is anything but dull, as she encounters a young woman named Carmen (Patricia Velazquez), a waitress at one of the local eateries; Carmen's `Grampy,' (Alfonso Arau), who is something of a mystic; T-Bo (Mark Ruffalo), a truck driver who has issues concerning Carl; and Neil (Goran Visnjic) an artist who makes pinatas and takes a fancy to her. For Joline, it's a journey of discovery, during which she learns a lot about Carl, but even more about herself.

	There's a touch of humor, a touch of romance, and some insights into human nature in this quirky film that is more about characterization and character than plot. And Krueger presents it all extremely well, delivering a film that is engaging and entertaining. Her characters are very real people, with all the wants, needs and imperfections that make up the human condition; a rich and eclectic bunch through which she tells her story. We see it from Joline's point-of-view, as Krueger makes us privy to Joline's thoughts and therefore her motivations, which puts a decided perspective on the events as they unfold. That, along with the deliberate pace she sets that allows you to soak up the atmosphere and the ambiance she creates, makes for a very effective piece of storytelling. There's an underlying seriousness to this subject matter, but Krueger chooses to avoid anything heavy-handed or too deep and concentrates instead on the natural humor that evolves from the people and situations that Joline encounters. And the result is a well textured, affecting and upbeat look at that thing we call life.

	Heather Graham takes hold of this role from the first frame of the film to make Joline a character totally of her own creation. She immerses herself in the part and gives a performance that is convincing and believable, adding the little personal traits and nuance that makes all the difference between a portrayal that is a mere representation of a person, and one that is real. And for this film to work, it was imperative that Joline be viable and believable-- and Graham succeeds on all fronts. Her screen presence has never been more alluring, and her vibrant personality or even just the way she uses her eyes, is enough to draw you in entirely. it's all a part of the character she creates; there's an appeal to Joline that exudes from her entire countenance, who she is inside and out. She's a likable, agreeable person, and because you've shared her innermost thoughts, you know who she is. It's a good job all the way around, beginning with the way the character was written, to the way Graham brings her so vibrantly to life.

	As Carmen, Patricia Velazquez is totally engaging, as well. Her performance is very natural and straightforward, and she uses her instincts to effectively create her character. She has a charismatic presence, but is less than flamboyant, and it gives her an aspect that is attractively down-to-earth. She is refreshingly open and up-front; you get the impression that Carmen is not one to hold anything back, but is totally honest on all fronts, and that, too, is part of her appeal. And, as with Joline, this character is well written, and Velazquez brings her convincingly to life.

	Overall, there is a number of notable performances that are the heart and soul of this film, including those of Luke Wilson, Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother, Jay), Goran Visnjic, Alfonso Arau and especially Mark Ruffalo as T-Bo, who, with very little actual screen time, manages to create a memorable character.

	The supporting cast includes Kim Dickens (Jenny), Clea Du Vall (Mimi), Summer Phoenix (Meg), Art Alexakis (New York Car Thief), Dylan Baker (Carl's Editor), and Mary Kay Place (Psychiatrist). A film that says something about the value of stepping back to consider The Big Picture-- reflecting upon who we are, where we're going and what we really need-- `Committed' is an enjoyable experience; a ride definitely worth taking. 8/10.


Good Film.

I managed to pick this up on DVD in a local store sale. £2.99 seems like a good deal and it is. Thing is the film is named 'To Kill For'. It took a little detective work to find out it's original name.

In the UK it has been rated as an 18 and rightly so although the standard of films depends on the 'ability to sell'. Having seen Final Destination 3 last night it, in my view, should have been a 18.

Maybe the fact the delightful, Traci Lords is in it tends to make the classification board step it up to 18. Such a shame.

Traci is a great actress and should be given the chance to appear in bigger and large budget productions. She ability to turn what is branded a B-Movies into a Fine performance is nothing short of amazing.

Long Live Traci Lords and her incredible talent as an actress.


Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in 'Toy Soldiers'. He plays the highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan 'Snuffy' Bradberry. During a regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into their own hands.


Indeed: drug use, warehouse shoot-'em-ups, 'Matrix'-esque bullet dodging, a futuristic city with a mix of Asian races, and a lonely vampire --all in the same movie-- seems like a story that could only be envisioned by a Japanese pop/rock star. And that is exactly what 'Moon Child' is, and more. While all these elements combined may sound like the perfect subject for a campy B-movie of the week, 'Moon Child' pulls it off with but a few expected bumps and hitches along the way.

The film has a gritty, definitely independent feel to it, jumping from one scene to the next not in smooth transition, but rather sporadic leaps and bounds, giving glimpses into the characters' lives and barely scraping at a true plot. But the film makes no excuses, instead turning the story into one of friendship, love, trust, and betrayal all sugar-coated in the aforementioned elements of a futuristic society, warring gangsters, and vampires.

HYDE as the somber vampire 'Kei' is excellent, giving depth to the character and balancing-out the overly-zealous acting of Gackt as 'Sho,' an orphan who befriends Kei. Lee-Hom Wang also shines as the vengeful 'Son' who becomes friends with a grown-up Sho. The story revolves around these characters and their extended friends and family through different periods in their lives, and how simple friendship can so easily be turned into grief and betrayal.

While the action at times is all-too unrealistic and special effects appear just to show-off, one thing the film never does is presume to be about the immensely popular Asian singers it features. The superstars as actors have their flaws, and so do their characters. The movie rarely gets boring, and ends where it should, after jumping about quite a bit. 'Moon Child' is rather enjoyable, humorous at times, and even very touching: it is definitely worth your time!


...but you can see it from here.

I definitely don't understand why anyone would recommend this movie. Not a bit of plot, not suspenseful, not well-made. No point to having made it, really.

Completely forgettable in ever way.


The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.

That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.

Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!


WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.