The film is almost laughable with Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters teaming up as the mothers of convicted murderers. With the horrible notoriety after the trial, the two women team up and leave N.Y. for California in order to open and song and dance studio for Shirley Temple-like girls.

From the beginning, it becomes apparent that Reynolds has made a mistake in taking Winters with her to California. Winters plays a deeply religious woman who increasingly seems to be going off her rocker.

To make matters worse, the women who live together, are receiving menacing phone calls. Reynolds, who puts on a blond wig, is soon romanced by the wealthy father of one of her students, nicely played by Dennis Weaver.

Agnes Moorehead, in one of her last films, briefly is seen as Sister Alma, who Winters is a faithful listener of.

The film really belongs to Shelley Winters. She is heavy here and heaviness seemed to make her acting even better. Winters always did well in roles testing her nerves.

The ending is of the macabre and who can forget Winters at the piano banging away with that totally insane look?


The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.

Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those 'slight' roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.

If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film.


I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).

I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.


This P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great

(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.

I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?

The ancient generation gap cliché 'no redeeming social value' comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.

Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of 'In Cold Blood' and 'The Hitcher'.

As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.


I recommend Idiocracy to everyone. Luke Wilson is very funny, the movie is insightful and made me laugh so hard I had tears running down my face several times. Until the end, when I took a breath and realized just how close we are to Mr. Judge's vision of tomorrow.

Keep an eye out for a cameo by the guy from the Mac commercials (Justin Long)as Dr. Lexus. I found his performance Oscar-worthy, especially considering what Oscars have been handed out for in the recent past...besides, he's cute.

In short, Idiocracy is a fatally funny glimpse into a possible future where people are named after product brand names (the president's middle name is Mountain Dew), hospital visits cost $5 billion dollars, there are mountains of garbage because no one is smart enough to figure out what to do with it all, and nobody cares about anything but money. All because only stupid people are breeding. Sounds familiar to me, somehow. Oh, yeah; it's what I think of when I see professional wrestling...

Seriously, watch this movie. It's a good laugh and it will make you think.


'They Are Among Us' is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father 'disappeared' after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', and see how it is done right.


I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. I have always been a fan of Whoopi Goldberg and this movie only emphasizes it. She portrays a housewife in an African-American family which is moving up the social chain due to the husband's (Danny Glover) success as an attorney. She moves to an all white neighborhood where the people are friendly, yet a little awkward toward her. The various events that arise during the course of the movie make for SOME laughs but mostly appeal to the other emotions. This movie is not so much a comedy as a drama. I give it a strong 8/10. I highly recommend you catch it on TV or rent it soon.


Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made.


It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this 'movie.' No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.

The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.

**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream??

**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.

(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).

**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.

**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.

**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.

**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder?


I love Jane Austen's stories. I've only read two of them (P&P and S&S), but after having seen this adaption, I'm reaching for 'Persuasion' from my bookcase just to make sense out of the story, and also, because I refusing to believe Jane Austen could have written such nonsense. For me, I thought that if you base a film on a Jane Austen novel, you can't really go wrong. It will turn out great pretty much by default. I was wrong.

First of all, where are the characters that you sympathise with and like? You have to have at least one likable character to get the audience to invest their emotions in them, and this did not deliver. Sure, I wanted Anne and Wentworth to get together, but only because that's what you know the purpose of the story is, them getting together. Instead, I had to resist urges to throw my teacup at the TV and to continue watching it to the end.

Anne was utterly annoying throughout, and in the end, I really have no idea why Wentworth was so smitten by her, as there seemed to be nothing there for him to be attracted to. She was meek, bland, dull, socially inadequate and came across like a sheep following everyone else's instructions rather than having a mind of her own. This can still work for a lead character, if you do it well. This wasn't done well.

The other characters were just displaying various degrees of narcissism, of which Mary was the worst, with a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder. Where Mrs. Bennet in P&P had similar flaws, she was still endearing, whereas Mary was more of a freak-show. More loathsome than funny.

Wentworth was very handsome and seemed like a decent kind of guy. For the most part of the story, I was just wondering what kind of person he was and why he's in love with Anne, as surely, he's the kind of guy who would want a person who is a little bit more... alive? Acting-wise, not too much to say, as I reacted more to the characters being portrayed rather than how good/bad the people acting were. Anthony Head was excellent, but as soon as I saw he was in it, I expected no less.

Also found the story very confusing. It wasn't until the end of the movie where it seemed as if Elizabeth was not Anne's stepmother, but in fact a sister (I'm still not 100% on that). The whole Anne/Wentworth back story was also a bit fuzzy. They had been together but then broke up and they're both bitter about it? How come? I was wondering this for quite some time, and the explanation seemed to be she dumped him because she was persuaded to do so by someone? But it was said in a kind of 'by the by' way that it was almost missed, as if it was somehow unimportant. How can it be unimportant when it's the very core of the story?? There was also a lot of name-dropping, but no real feel for who the characters were. This Louisa person for instance, who was she? A friend? Family? What? It wasn't made very clear who the different characters are and their relationship with one another. Lady Russell was there a lot, but why? Mrs. Croft and Wentworth were brother and sister, which felt very unrealistic as Mrs. Croft looked old enough to be his mother.

The final kiss, yes it was a bit strange them kissing in the street, but I didn't really think about it, because I was too busy yelling 'GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!' at the TV, because Anne's lips trembled and trembled and trembled for what felt like ages before they actually met Wentworth's. Have SOME hesitation there, but only for a couple of seconds or so, not half a minute.

Then there's the issue of camera work. As a regular movie watcher, you don't pay attention to angles and such unless you decide to look out for it. I didn't decide to do so here, but I still noticed them. To me, that means the filmmakers are not doing a good job. A lot of conversations were with extreme facial closeups, something that should only be used when there's a really important point to be made. In this adaption, it was over-used and therefore lacked meaning. The hand-held feeling on occasion also didn't really work in a period drama. The camera work in the running scene in the end also felt too contemporary. (Not to mention the running itself.) This was the only Austen adaption I caught in ITV's Austen season. Makes me wonder if it's worth watching 'Northanger Abbey' and 'Mansfield Park' or if I should just read the books and leave it at that. I'm sad to say, this is a Jane Austen adaption I did not enjoy. Maybe I'll watch the 1995 version instead. The BBC are renowned for having done beautiful Austen adaptations before, after all.


Although Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.

Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.

Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.


To put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.


This series had potential, but I suppose the budget wouldn't allow it to see that potential. An interesting setup, not dissimilar to 'lost' it falls flat after the 1st episode. The whole series, 6 episodes, could have made a compelling 90 minute film, but the makers chose to drag it on and on. Many of the scenes were unbearably slow and long without moving the action forward. The music was very annoying and did not work overall. There were few characters we cared about as their characters did not grow during the time frame--- well, one grew a bit. The ending was as terrible as the rest of series. The only kudos here is to the art dept and set dressers, they created an interesting look, too bad the writer and director lacked the foresight to do something interesting with that element


Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.

Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).

Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.

Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.

Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the tits erased.

While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.

Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.

On the plus side Stellan Skarsgård puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.


I watched this movie because of Costas Mandylor and Lauren Holly. I adored them together on Picket Fences, so it was a treat to see them together again. This was not the best movie ever made, but it was cute. Very predictable, but sometimes mindlessly fun movies are just what I need.

The desserts were gorgeous, and I wanted to eat all of them. I did love it when that one fell apart though. I bet it still tasted good.

Costas and Lauren still had the great chemistry that they had back on Picket Fences, and I swooned as they kissed in this movie.

I wouldn't watch this again, but it was a great filler for one night.


First off, if you want to make a good film, don't cram all your exposition into the last 10 minutes. The viewer is expected to be bewildered for nearly two hours, only to have Margo's father explain everything to Alex very late in the film. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided it wasn't enough to have the basic mystery solved, but adds in a completely unnecessary murder that we knew nothing about (involving Alex's father!).

There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.

Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?


When I think of Return of the Jedi I think epic. Yeah Ewoks were in there so what? They're an interesting add to the movie (not to mention they are similar to the Vietcong who were also able to take down a technologically advanced army with primitive acts). Jedi is definitely more darker then the rest of the movies. Emperor Palpatine (portrayed by the amazing theater actor Ian McDiarmid) was one the best parts of the movie. Palpatine is so evil and vicious, Vader looks like Mr. Rogers compared to him . Speaking of Darth Vader, what an amazing end to such an iconic character. Vader is truly a modern day Greek tragedy and I think people can now especially understand and appreciate this after Revenge of the Sith came out. His redemption at the end was moving and really brings a happy yet bittersweet feeling to you. The best part was of course the special effects. It's amazing how a film from the early eighties can still stand the test of time with it's graphics. The scenes at Jabba's palace (Leia looks amazing in that metal bikini) and of course the epic three way battle at the end are still stunning to look at. In all Jedi's deep plot and emotional moments (primarily between Luke Vader and Palpatine and when Luke reveals the truth to Leia) and incredible special effects is a fitting end to one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history.


Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie 'Dead Line'. This is the US video title for 'Interferencia'. Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of 'B' titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on 'The Asylum' label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says'..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is 'The screams you will hear are real'. Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.


The movie itself is so pathetic. It portrayed deaf people as cynical toward hearing people. True, some deaf people are wary of dating hearing people, but they are not necessarily angry like of Marlee Matlin's character was throughout the story. Deaf people do not go to the bar and dance the way Matlin did. All in all, the movie itself is more boring than pathetic. It is so boring that I'd like to believe that it is an insomnia-cured movie. If I have a problem sleeping, I can simply pop in Children of a Lesser God and watch. It will put me to sleep.

Keep in mind, this is a deaf guy talking.


The martial arts movies got huge in the 60's in parts of Asia but with the growing popularity of the infamous Shaw Brothers films, America was bound to catch on. This movie was the first to be presented in America under the Warner Bros. label and it did in fact start a craze here that flooded the 70's with martial arts films. Many of the films to follow would pale in comparison but some were great and many like Enter The Dragon (which came out shortly after this one) became huge success stories and made superstars out of these fighters.

Fast forward almost 40 years later and this movie still holds up. Most Shaw brothers films are as good today as they were back then and truth be told no films have been made in this genre to compete with those made by The Shaw Bros back in the day.

I like to think Martial arts are like porn and nobody watches porn for the plot just the action, well same goes with M.A. films and most of them are just a bunch of great fights with little story, this one is an exception. It doesn't have an amazing story but there is one there.

The main guy played by Lo Lieh actually stands out amongst karate film heroes. He never brags and he never fights just because he can, he is often seen as weak and less of a fighter than most, but when he must fight, he is damn well the greatest alive. I really loved this character. Many of the bad guys were memorable and the fight scenes were just presented so amazingly. Even a small role with Bolo Yeung can be seen as the huge Mongolian, and Bolo is in my top 5 as greatest martial artist film stars ever, he was also in the above mentioned Enter The Dragon.

The production as I've said over and over is wonderful, you can't beat the Shaws, the direction was something unlike I have seen much in films of the 70's, the use of color was well placed and made this movie stand alone and rise above the others. When the light shines on Chi Hao's hands as he does the Iron Fist, its pure beauty.

The music was superb as well. Martial arts films were to Asia what westerns were to Italy, two separate art forms with so much in common. The countries making these films had all genres but the Japanese films were what was making waves there as the spaghetti westerns were in Italy. With their many differences the styles of these two genres were neck and neck. As seen in movies like 5 Fingers Of Death, the fights were easily compared to Sergia Leoni cowboy stand offs, and the music tied the genres together so well. The music here borrowed a little from Ironside, but it was still very original.

Many films were inspired by this one and when I watch it I can see everything from The Master Killer to Bloodsport having been influenced. The most obvious movie to have been influenced was Kill Bill, which to me is the greatest of all time. Many of the sets Quentin used are complete replicas of ones seen here and he used the music from this film, even though the music he used was the music borrowed from Ironside. And the fight scene at the end of Kill Bill vol. 1 with The Bride and O-Ren is at times exact in comparison to the fight with Chi Hao and the Japanese thug at the end of this movie.

I have seen many martial arts films, a few even better, but this is a MUST-SEE for fans of the genre. You can't go wrong here. The movie starts off slow but 15-20 minutes into it it picks up and doesn't slow down.


They had me from the first show.

Welcome to Trinity County. A sleepy little Mayberry-like place with one slight difference. The sheriff is really Satan. There's the spoiler. Not like you wouldn't figure it out in 10 minutes anyway.

Oh, but that's not all. It turns out that Satan has a son named Caleb. Some people are trying to keep him good, but it's an uphill battle. Sheriff Buck (Satan) knows who Caleb is and likes to spend time with him teaching him the ways of darkness. Subtle. Sneaky. He doesn't always come off as evil. Most of the time he's a hero. Everyone owes him a big favor, because he often sets up a calamity and saves them from it. So every time you think someone will finally take him down, one of his friends comes out of nowhere to sabotage it.

In one of my favorite episodes, Lucas and Caleb were out in the woods in a cabin and some guys with guns decided to rob them. Lucas used it as an excuse to teach Caleb a lesson about evil.

The robber (Ted) was hesitant to shoot them. Lucas told Caleb that Ted had half a conscience. If he had no conscience, he would have shot them by now. If he had a real conscience, he never would have become a criminal. So he started calling him Half-Ted. It was pretty funny. He was taunting the criminals. And of course he stayed 10 steps ahead of Half-Ted at all times. And of course he was in complete control at all times. They actually had you favoring Satan.

Very very excellent show. it was one of my favorite horror shows of all time. Twilight Zone Night Stalker Circle of Fear American Gothic Supernatural

That's good company.


If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy 'You Are Alone'. It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.

Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.

Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.

As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie.


Recently had the pleasure of seeing this emotionally charged film by Director Mani Ratnam at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival. I have bestowed my highest honour of the Film Festival on this feature. Make sure that you do not let an opportunity to experience this cinematic gem pass you by ... but be forewarded: this film will make you shed a tear if you belong to the species known as homo sapien! A 10 !!


'Death Lends A Hand' is one of the pivotal early episodes of 'Columbo' that helped define the show for the next thirty years. It marks the first of Robert Culp's four appearances (three as a murderer), playing much the same role in each show.

In this case Culp plays Brimmer, the head of a large private detective company who is asked to investigate whether the wife of a wealthy newspaper magnate, Mr Kennicut, is having an affair. Although she is, Brimmer decides not to tell Kennicut, in the hope that he can blackmail his wife in return for snippets of information about her husband's business associates. She reacts badly to this suggestion, an argument ensues which rapidly turns violent as Brimmer whacks her across the face. Because he is wearing a large ring, the blow knocks her to the ground and kills her.

There are some really priceless moments in this episode. One of my favourite scenes is where Columbo pretends to be into palm-reading, although this is in fact a ruse to discover the shape and size of Brimmer's ring without admitting that he knows the killer wore a ring. Columbo being Columbo, he only reveals what he really knows when the time is exactly right to turn the screws a little. So initially he goofily plays the part of a rather simple-minded man who gets excited by the 'lifeline going over the mound of the moon', or some equally ridiculous palm-reading mumbo-jumbo.

Another great scene is when Brimmer tries to offer Columbo a job for his firm, effectively bribing him to stop poking his nose around. Again, Columbo doesn't reveal that he knows what's going on, he pretends to be honoured and excited by this job offer.

And there's another where Columbo says to Kennicut, in front of Brimmer, that he wishes the murderer could hear their conversation. He wants to hint to Brimmer that he is onto him, without directly accusing him, so he rather cruelly (but understandable in the circumstances) decides to play mindgames on Brimmer in order to spook him into panicking and doing something stupid. Which of course he does! All the while, the grieving Kennicut is unaware of the subtext of this conversation. It's only near the end that Columbo explains all to Kennicut (not shown on screen).

I won't reveal how Columbo finally nails the killer bang to rights, but let's just say there's a potato involved...

A really really good episode, possibly the very best of the first series. If you liked this then you'll like 'Double Exposure' too, also featuring Robert Culp.


When I first heard of this movie, I was mildly interested. The plot seemed like an opportunity for hilarity and Bam Margera as an actor and director seemed like something that might be good. When I found out the movie starred Ryan Dunn, I was even further interested (I was a fan of Homewrecker when it was on... Yeah, I'm that lame). However, I didn't have much faith in it being to good. When I sat down to watch it, I was afraid I was wasting my time.

But even just five minutes it it became apparent that I'd been wrong.

I thought that the comedy of this film was delightfully idiotic, and definitely not suited for all kinds of people. The acting was rather good, much better than my expectations. I thought that it was rather easy to relate to Ryan's character, which gave the movie a center that was believable. This is key in a movie as outrageous as this (and is probably why I was not a fan of Borat).

The movie is not suitable at all for younger people, DUH, and will definitely create more than it's fair share of awkward turtles if watched with parents. But it's a good one for you and your buddies on a movie night.


A 14 year old girl develops her first serious crush on the 17 year old boy that lives near by, while simultaneously trying to overcome her feelings of inadequacy in comparison to her older sister. That is the simple premise of this beautiful, poetic coming of age film from Director Robert Mulligan. Mulligan is famous for previously directing Summer of '42 in 1971 and To Kill A Mockingbird in 1962, two giants of the coming of age genre. Here he directs newcomers in the principal roles: Reese Witherspoon, in her film debut, as the 14 year old girl; Emily Warfield, as the older sister; Jason London, as Court, the 17 year old boy. Reese Witherspoon is astonishingly good in her film debut, displaying every emotion that a 14 year old girl feels in experiencing young love and hurt, never striking a false note. Warfield and London are both equally good as well. The film accurately depicts each adolescent's thoughts or feelings in regard to love with heartfelt sensitivity, never crossing over into maudlin excess even once. Kudos to the autobiographical screenplay from Jenny Wingfield; this is one of the very few films about young love that is honest and consistent in tone without being emotionally dishonest or sensationalist. The music is wonderfully simple, accentuating the tone and mood from scene to scene, but never becoming intrusive. The beautiful cinematography is by famed horror director Freddie Francis, who was in his 70's when this was shot. Tess Harper and Sam Waterston play the girls' parents with dead aim accuracy for 1957, caring, strict, and emotionally simple. Gail Strickland is good also as the boy's mother. There are feelings to sort out, lessons to learn, and truths to face in this sweet-natured film that packs an emotional wallop. To date, this is Robert Mulligan's last film. This is one of the very best films of 1991. **** of 4 stars.


'Tales from the Crapper' is gory, disgusting, tasteless, offensive, lowbrow and scatological. But that's OK, I was prepared for all that from my previous Troma experiences. What I WASN'T prepared for is that it's also witless, unfunny and boring. Very little of the genuine anarchic spirit of films like 'Class of Nuke'em High' has remained intact; in its place, we get ENDLESS fart jokes (to the point where you start wondering if Lloyd Kaufman is going senile, thinking that adults find loud farting so darn hilarious!) and a cynical, shameless exploitation of the viewer, who is essentially investing time and money to see a 'film' that even Kaufman himself seems to know should never have been released in the first place. Oh yes, there is plenty of female nudity on display, but let's face it: the average porn film probably offers a better storyline, higher production values, funnier humor, and above all more RESPECT for its intended viewer than this atrocity.

P.S: Kelly Powers AKA Suzi Lorraine (the blonde lesbian student in the 'How to make your own movie' segment) is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.


The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti.

Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.


The sort of 'little' film which studios used to excel at but seldom make anymore. Sort of a 'soul' version of the more well-known 'The Last Of The Blonde Bombshells'. Ian McShane is excellent as a DJ and aficionado of soul music who becomes obsessed with the idea of re-uniting the members of a classic soul group, and the film follows his exploits as well as those of the group members; a cast which includes such genuine musical talent as Isaac Hayes, as well as acting stalwarts Taurean Blacque, Derrick O'Connor and Antonio Fargas. Not meant to be an epic by any means, this is nonetheless a chunk of solid gold.


A bad rip-off attempt on 'Seven', complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them 'sex offenders', they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.

No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.

The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.

Unlike 'Seven', which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about 'sex offenders' -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.

There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.

Don't waste time on this one.


Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?


I was just a bit young for this one, but I had to see it. There's some excellent music, which many folks have mentioned, but no one seems to notice a very rare appearance by 'Angel', a now mostly ignored but once quite popular musical outfit. Wearing their trademark white outfits, they grind through '20th Century Foxes', and apparently all try to cram into the camera's field of vision. Keyboardist Gregg Giuffria remains the bands highlight, and has apparently never gotten much of a haircut, ever! Cherie Currie (ex-Runaways singer) begins a brief, but notable, acting career here, and is quite memorable alongside Jodie Foster, and the rest. (Her topless 3-D scenes in 'Parasite', and her UFO sighting, in 'Wavelength' kept us all watching her for a time).

It's not a masterpiece, but it preserves a chunk of its period, for all to gaze upon, and wonder.


The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.

The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D' is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.

I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.

And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like 'Without the contributions of these brave men and women...' Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.

1/4


Propaganda pro-American war effort film that came out in 1942 has the East Side Kids getting tough against any Japanese they spot in their own neighborhood when they learn they're too young to enlist. Ultimately they learn they were mistaken in their mistrust of some individuals but also happen to stumble across a spy ring they then set out to bust. The film is harmless enough in its fashion although some may well take offense given how innocent Asians really did get singled out during the Second World War. Overall though, it's a pretty generic effort and both Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall would have better moments, the best of which tend to come here when they ad-lib.


and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.


The plot here is simple. Country boy, Lem (Farrell) goes to the city to sell the wheat crop, falls in love with a waitress, Kate (Duncan) and marries her, bringing her home to a hostile father and a group of woman-hungry reapers. There are shades of THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED and MICE AND MEN here. The courtship, taking place in two lengthy sequences set in the restaurant, consume the first half hour and are lethargically paced. Lem is so weak he allows his father to mistreat his wife, who is propositioned by Mac (Richard Alexander) , one of the reapers, to come away with him. Duncan and Alexander are the only good things in this tedious potboiler, which lacks the insights and the cinematic beauty we expect from Murnau. Farrell's character has no backbone so we wind up rooting for a 'real man' (Mac) to take Kate away from it all. With audience sympathy skewed, the film loses its narrative progression. The father's conversion at film's end is unrealistic and unbelievable, making for a contrived denouement. This film is for fans of the stars and the director only - general audiences need not bother.


One of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in 'Wink Of An Eye', when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...

Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear 'the plaaain! the plaaaain!' in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots?

SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.


Barman directed Any Way the Wind Blows as he would sing a dEUS song. Anarchy rules over a logical and common strain of thoughts. The story behind this movie just goes any which way the wind blows. And that can truly be refreshing to watch, if you are prepared and willing that is. Viewers who state that there is nothing to keep the story-lines together are right. Who the hell is that Windman anyway? Still, I really enjoyed this movie. Antwerp is a beautiful, bustling, happening place and Any Way captures that feeling. It also captures the silliness, the racism, the bureaucracy, the addictions and the violence that survives undetected in a seemingly friendly city. The movie is entertaining, funny and a little shallow. Barman's screen debut will not make as heavy an impact as his music debut. In that light some might be disappointed. But then again, 'Worst Case Scenario' would be a subtle subtitle for Any Way the Wind Blows.


Robert McKimson's 'Acrobatty Bunny' is one of the director's finest shorts. Although the circus-based setting may evoke hideous memories of McKimson's dreadful 'Big Top Bunny', 'Acrobatty Bunny' is in fact nowhere near as dull as that travesty. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a ferocious lion, 'Acrobatty Bunny' is fresh and funny from the outset, not to mention extremely attractive to look at. There's a classic scene in which Bugs takes a strangled elevator ride out of his hole only to emerge directly into the jaws of the lion. In a brilliant Disney parody, he hollers 'Pinocchio' down the lion's throat! This brilliant opening is a sign of things to come. There are some expertly choreographed antics in and around the lion's cage to begin with, followed by a hilariously grotesque and irritating rendition of 'Laugh Clown Laugh' which, as a child, I used to impersonate regularly! All this culminates in a short acrobatic sequence which gives the cartoon its name. I've never been fond of the circus as a setting for cartoons and find it usually makes for a dull and predictable set of gags but 'Acrobatty Bunny' breaks from the mould and the result is an exhilaratingly funny short which stands amongst McKimson's best.


Okay, my title is kinda lame, and almost sells this flick short. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert in '94 talking about this movie, and then playing a clip or two. Not being a rap-conscious guy (although I could identify Snoop Dogg, Vanilla Ice, and MC Hammer music), I wasn't much interested when they started talking about the film. But then, S&E showed the scene where the band explains how they picked their name (using some 'shady' logic and a bunch of 'made up' facts), and then another scene where the band, and their rival band, both visit a school to promote getting involved (and, of course, NWH comes up with some 'info' about how the rival band leader is a loser because he got good grades in school and was on the yearbook committee). So I filed it away that I should see this movie.

A couple of years later, this thing shows up on HBO and I recorded it, only to laugh my butt off for hours. Yes, it has a 'Spinal Tap' kind of rhythm to it...even the documentarist takes essentially the same 'tone' in setting up the clips, and the band follows a similar path (what I now call the 'Behind the Music' phenomenon - smalltime band has good chemistry, gets famous, too much money too fast, squabbling, drugs, some type of death, band breaks up, then reconciles, finishing with a hope for more albums in the future, and fade to black). The one thing that is true is that in Spinal Tap, you catch the band perhaps with a little more success in their past. But Tap drags at some points, and in my mind is reduced to laughs that are set up by specific scenes. Oh, this is his rant about the backstage food, this is spot where he wants the amp to go to 'ELEVEN', this is the spot where the guy makes the pint-sized stonehenge, etc...

Contrasting to FoaBH, which seems to have more 'unexpected' humor. You can see some of it coming, but there isn't a big setup for every joke. Sometimes, the jokes just kinda flow. Cundieff and the other actors in the band had a real chemistry that worked. Also, the direct references to Vanilla Ice, Hammer, and a bunch of other caricature-type rappers really worked well. This strikes me as a film you watch once to get the main story and laughs, and then go back and watch to catch the subtle jokes. And the songs. Is 'My Peanuts' better than 'Big Bottom' (from Spinal Tap)? I don't know - but they're both damn funny. Tone Def's awful video during his 'awakening' phase is so bizarre, yet so funny.

I could go on awhile, but save your time and don't waste it on CB4. I watched the first half hour, and got bored. You don't get bored on FoaBH. There are slightly less funny moments, but you can never tell when something good is about to happen. Perhaps my favorite scene is when Ice Cold and Tastey Taste (name ripoffs if I've ever heard any) discover they've been sharing the same girl....at one point, you've got those two pointing guns at each other, and the next thing you know, the manager, the photographer, the girl, and I think even Tone Def are in the room pointing guns at each other, switching targets back and forth. And, of course, someone does get shot.

I did find it odd that NWH's managers suffered similar fates to Spinal Tap's drummers (although none spontaneously combusted, I don't think). There were enough similarities that I cannot ignore the likelihood that Cundieff saw 'Spinal Tap' prior to writing this film, although this is clearly much more the Spinal Tap of hip-hop. While some similarities exist, the humor is different, and the movie seems more like a real documentary (maybe because we don't recognize a single actor in this thing, even the guy who played 'Lamar' from 'Revenge of the Nerds'). All in all, this movie has, in my opinion, 'street cred'. Kinda like NWH.


I realize that alot of people hate this movie, but i must admit that it is one of my favorites. I happen to like it better then its predeccesor and happy to like it better than alot of movies.

First off, I think that people never give the story any credit, much like Back to the Future, Time Travel is hard to write, and in this movie they included Time Travel and a Spiritual Journey.

I also feel that Keanu and Alex were on there best performances in this movie, they looked cooler, acted cooler, and said cooler things.

The set design of this movie is awsome as well, The sets are quite detailed and massive at times and it can be hard to believe that these sets were made for a movie about two teenage buds who can hardly spell...but isnt that the genius of the whole franchise, making these two idiots bigger than life characters that are responsible for the entire utopian future of earth.

The costume design was awsome as well. Bill and Ted actually look cool in Bogus Journey, where as in Excellent Adventure they look rather like, well as they would put it, FAGS!!!

Even the music in this movie is awsome, the score especially. There so much i could say about this film, cause i love it. But this is one of those movies i grew up watching and everytime i did i liked it more, so i can understand why people hate or just think its Bogus compared to Excellent adventure (which i also love by the way).

GET DOWN WITH YOUR BAD SELF!!!!


Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more.


This film had about everything one could wish when viewing it originally, at the end of the 1960's decade. It was immensely entertaining, and provided a contemporary view of the many changes which had occurred during that period - and were still ongoing - in terms of the Black Power movement, Vietnam, and the volatile movement which followed the quieter, preceding postwar 1950's.

All of this and one of the funniest films, then or now.

Viewing it for the second time recently, I was surprised to find it as engrossing as when seen originally. Its humor is as funny, and its message as strong.

And in viewing it now, you get all of this, while at the same time gaining the added enjoyment of its being a 'period piece,' and a superb chronicling of its this historic, turbulent time.


In 1961, this series was shown on local TV here in southern California. I and many others have been petering BBC for tape or DVD ever since. Now all of a sudden, here it is on Amazon. I pre-ordered in January and now here on March 30 it arrived. It was a long wait (48 years). Was it worth it? So far I have just watched Richard II (I've only had the DVD since 2 o'clock) and I can truly say YEA!!! totally worth the wait. The acting, direction, and production are superb and even better than I remember. The production is in B & W but somehow it fits. The video is clear and very good, the sound is flawless. Further proof of how timeless Shakespeare truly is.

I gave this 10 stars even though I have only seen 1 of the 8 plays. I am sure that when I have seen them all I will change my rating to at least a 12.

It's currently in stock at Amazon (US region 1) at a reasonable price.

I'd better stop now so I can get back to watching. Next up is Henry the IV, part 1 of which is my all time favorite Shakespeare play.


The crew of an American submarine discover it's HELL BELOW while fighting in the Adriatic in 1918.

Although nearly forgotten, this excellent war film still delivers solid entertainment, thanks to a literate script, superior performances and highly believable action scenes.

Robert Montgomery & Walter Huston play submarine officers under the stress of war who quickly are at odds with each other, with dramatic and tragic results. Since Montgomery is in love with Huston's daughter, Madge Evans in a well-played role, the situation becomes even more complicated, both on shore and beneath the waves. The viewer is torn between the two strong characters, one of whom is governed by his heart and the other by the rules.

Robert Young makes an effective appearance as Montgomery's buddy. Sterling Holloway creates a brief, vivid, portrait of a doomed seaman.

Eugene Pallette as the torpedo master & Jimmy Durante as the sub's cook make for a very funny comedy team and provide the story with plenty of laughs. Durante's nose comes in for lots of ribbing and his obsession with amateur dentistry leads to some chaotic encounters with British tars.

Movie mavens will recognize Babe London as an obese Italian miss; Maude Eburne as the wife of a British admiral & Paul Porcasi as an Italian admiral - all uncredited.

MGM has given the film absolutely first-class production values, with the undersea sequences especially well produced. Both the claustrophobic compactness of the ship and the inevitable tension associated with submarine warfare are accurately portrayed. Other moments of unexpected drama (Montgomery & Miss Evans caught on top of a stalled Ferris wheel during an air raid) and hilarity (Durante boxing a kangaroo) are expertly threaded into the fabric of the movie to provide a totally satisfying viewing experience.


I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.

But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.

The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.

I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.

Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. 'Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys,' he tells the head. 'Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?' he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.

I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.

There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an 'implausibility,' since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom!

A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, 'Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view.' Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.

Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.

These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.

Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.


Well the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).

Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....

Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.

But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).


The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.

It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.

The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!

Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?

The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.


Belonging to the subgenre of post-apocalyptic future films, it is a stylistic and very very intimate installment. The most noticed element of the film is its silence; no one speaks. I don't think Besson, despite what is evident in most of his later work, meant it as any kind of cool gimmick. I think what makes it so clever and so effective is the fact that with no other way of communicating, everyone has to read each other based on intuition and conveying of emotion, no matter how slight. Though I wasn't glued to the screen, upon reflection I see that it's a very touching and sensitive perspective on human nature. Its vehicle is the stylized sci-fi movie. Part of its reflection on the nature of the human world is that each of its humans is not necessarily played as a perfect human being: The hero, a lone drifter in the desolate new world, is taken in by an older recluse, who refuses to keep his part of an exchange of food between him and a husky, brutish character played by Jean Reno, and so Reno tries everything he can, predominantly using brute force, to get what he wants. So, the antagonist is right, though not a good person, and the protagonist and his sympathetic foil are both wrong, though they are both good people.

It's shot in a clear and crisp black and white, edited and captured in a low-key yet spry and small-scale approach, and its actors are very real. How can they not be? They, like their characters are left with the bare necessities of communication. This is one of the few truly good films that Luc Besson has written. His earlier work is almost always better than the fluff he churns out now.


This film is just plain lovely. It's funny as hell and as old as the hills. The acting is superb and it's fascinating seeing post-war Britain and how we used to behave in those days. This seems to have been some pre-runner to the St. Trinians films (given the Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford connection - there's also a very young George Cole in there who appeared in many St. Trinians films) but I don't myself understand the connection. It was shown on BBC4 recently after a biography of St. Trinians creator Ronald Searle, however I missed enough of the biography to miss the connection with this film. Anyway a great film in its own right and something that should be preserved for all time!


This movie had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess.


This is a very moving picture about 3 forty-something best friends in a small england town. One finds a passionate loves and a new beginning with a younger piano instructor, When tragedy strikes and hearts are changed forever. Definitely a film to have a box of tissues with you! A powerful piece of work. This is definitely one of my favorite films of all time.

*SPOILER!!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER!!*

The main character is taken by her young, handsome piano instructor and a passionate romance blossoms. Her two jealous 'friends' play an immature prank which quickly leads to tragedy. She loses her love and her friends in one foul swoop. In the end a unexpected surprise pulls them back together.(in my opinion her forgiveness is not warranted)


I love the way that this game can make you literally jump out of your seat while you are playing it. The way that the screen jumps and flashes when you get hit, its very realistic while at the same time you have to remember that its just a game and your not really there. The sound effects and audio are amazing. There are a lot of weapons and different spells to cast and you can even choose which spells to make stronger or not. You get this stone that can knock back enemies while you recover mana to blast your foes with even more magic. The best part is that the whole time you are playing it you are really jumpy and afraid of what might lurk around the next corner or what might jump out behind you. If you want to get the full experience, try playing it with head phones on.


Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as 'Page 3' with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.

The film's music is average. The only passable songs are 'Kitne Ajeeb' and 'Huzoor-E-Ala', sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is 'Filmy Very Filmy'. The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous.


A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.

Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.

Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.

This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.

So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.

I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well.I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.

This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.

There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.

On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.

Poor Udo Kier.


Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in 'Tarantula'). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts.


How could I possibly pass up the chance to see Orlando Bloom and Heath Ledger together? Well, I couldn't and so, I rented this mess of a movie.

I had never heard of Ned Kelly and was surprised by what I found out about this young man's legend. I was also surprised at how mediocre this movie was. Perhaps the fact that it was very, very late and at the end of a 4 hour movie marathon or maybe it was because it really is a little slow, I found this story difficult to follow. Not because the story is complicated, but because it is slow. Even with a slow story, Ledger and Bloom managed to create interesting, dimensional characters.

Though I flounder to recommend this as a must see, it is a great story of Australian history (considering how young the country is, this is very rare and should be appreciated) and the film does have some good actions sequences.

6/10 see it for historical value....(yeah right...and that's the only reason to see it... ;) )


PDQ Bach did it better. Much of 'Bach''s speaking part is letters written to various patrons complaining about the amount and speed of his payment. Anna Magdalena's diary, mostly about the death of children and sundry other family matters, is an iota more engaging. The music is disconcerting: 17th century sized chapel orchestras and choirs producing 20th century concert hall sound. The overall production quality reminded me of a junior high slide show. J S Bach was a brilliant man whose music speaks for itself. This film adds nothing. Netflix sent me 2 discs that wouldn't play, so I streamed the movie. Clearly Netflix was trying to tell me something.


Dire! Dismal! Awful! Laughable! Disappointing!

Right, your trapped in 'The Cave' with several 'hard' Men and a Woman or two, your being systematically killed by 'Something' and you STILL don't get to hear ANY naughty Grown Up words!!! A 15 Cert' here in England, and you could tell!

The Egos of the 'Macho Men' was just too much, pass the bucket I'm going to be sick.

This movie should never be exposed to daylight and ironically, be kept in the darkest, deepest hole in the ground and be forgotten forever. I have a feeling that this description isn't the first time to pop its his head from a hole in the ground.

Just like the film The Cube, it looked like a good concept but was just let down at the last post by, well its self.

This Comment contains Spoilers alright, its called The Cave.

Thanks Bruce.


Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.

Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream.. Or was it? (Cue music)

The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.

I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)

Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says 'hello is anyone there' every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.

Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.

Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't.


I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!


In Everything Is Illuminated, Elijah Wood plays Jonathan Foer, a Jewish American who is looking for the woman who saved his grandfather during WWII. In a sense, the woman that saved his entire family.

This is a heart-felt tale about someone who is on a seemingly hopeless journey. A stranger in a strange land so to speak. Jonathan is not entirely prepared for this adventure, he sticks out like a sore thumb in the Ukraine (he would probably stick out like a sore thumb anywhere). But what he discovers is more, much more than he anticipated. This movie will make you laugh and will make you cry. Elijah Wood is really good in this film, based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer.

From someone I talked to, this movie is somewhat different from the book. A book I gather is really good. Nevertheless, this is a good movie, it has something for everyone and I really enjoyed it. Can someone say Oscar?


This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.


i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the 'elvis moves' down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.)


THIS FILM IS LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!! It takes a lot to bring me to over-exaggeration about a movie, but this movie stunk up my house!! I haven't even finished the movie yet and I had to stop to comment on how bad this movie is. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT!! As a consumer, do not spend your money on this film. Wait until it comes out on a cable channel or something. It's barely TV worthy. I REALLY HATE TRASHING A MOVIE, BUT THIS MOVIE IS TRASH! Barely above porn. Should have and X rating! Good plot, some frontal nudity (if that floats your boat), but HORRIBLE high school level acting. Don't know how this movie received distribution. (Must have been a contractual thing.) Really, if you really like watching good movies, don't waste you time with this one. From one movie lover to another. YOU WILL BE MAD AT YOURSELF! Let me say this as well, if you've been through something like this perhaps you can relate and it will have some value for you. In that case I say watch it, you may take something away from it, if not just seeing something that's happened to you being acted out by someone else (has therapeutic value).


I just saw this episode this evening, on a recently-added presentation by one of our local independent channels, which now presents two episodes each weekday.

As the gentleman opined in the other, previous comment here, I agree this may not have been one of the best programs of the series, but I find it entertaining nonetheless.

My father was a friend of one of the principals (in my hometown, Cincinnati), for whom young Rod Serling had worked in the media there -- and I remember Dad telling how talented and creative he was remembered there. Overall 'Twilight Zone' is certainly one of the true classics in television, and given its production during the height of the Cold War period, provides not only a view of this era in the country, but also (today) a nostalgic picture of production techniques, creative viewpoints and the actors of this era several decades ago.

* Minor 'spoiler.'*

This particular story depicts, as did other presentations in this series and elsewhere, a story where the locale is meant to provide a 'surprise' ending. Sometimes the characters are on earth, from elsewhere, while the story at first implies at least one is an 'Earthling.' These usually contained the message (as here) of a situation prompted by the doomsday buttons having finally been pressed by the super powers during this Cold War period.

Viewed today, stories like this one provide a nostalgic look at this worldly viewpoint 4-5 decades ago, and still provide some food-for-thought. -- as did this episode.

While the dialog may not have stretched the considerable talents of the leads, it still presents a simple, important message, and a worthwhile 20-some minutes of entertainment and interest.


New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).

What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.

So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left.