What's written on the poster is: 'At birth he was given 6 years to live... At 34 he takes the journey of a lifetime.' Ami is an American-born Israeli who was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy disease at the age of one. At age of 34, after the love toward his 22 years old care-giver didn't go well, he decided to come to the US to face the doctor who said that he would have only 6 years to live. He wanted to show the doctor that he is still alive, and weights 39 pounds. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, even I have seen this film.

Obviously it's courageous to live when all he can move is his left index finger, but why does he have so much anger toward the doctor who diagnosed his disease 34 years ago? His doctor just told his mom that based on the medical history, people with his disease won't live long. What's the point of him showing up at old doctor's door for? Why is tracking down this old doctor in the US is a journey of his lifetime? There are so many things we might be interested in Ami's life: how can he make those animations with the movement of only one finger? How can he go through daily lives while totally depending on others? How did he out lived his doctor's prediction? How does he deal emotionally when other people look at him like looking at a strange creature? The movie told us none of that. Instead, the filmmaker got a van and set up a trip to let Ami to show up at his old doctor's door in order to show him that he is still alive. I thought it was a joke.


I was rather appalled to see the low rating this movie received here, personally considering it fun family fare. It revolves around a young teenager, Sandy Ricks, who is sent by his mom to Coral Key to spend the summer with his Uncle Porter. While there he befriends a dolphin named Flipper. Lots of adventures ensue amid the predictable nephew / uncle bonding as well as a little romance for Sandy with a local girl.

I'm a great Crocodile Dundee fan myself so absolutely loved Paul Hogan in his role as crusty and comical Uncle Porter. For starters, he keeps an endless stock of Spaghetti-O's in his house to serve as his usual meal, heated with a blowtorch! Elija Wood, Frodo from The Lord of the Rings, appeared quite competent playing the young Sandy, a boy at first none too fond of his forced summer vacation locale.

Of course the dolphin is magnificent and there are some wonderful underwater scenes. Set in the Florida Keys, it was apparently filmed in the Bahamas. This adaptation of Flipper makes great family entertainment, a sweet, sentimental, and fun movie that is infinitely superior to many of the cinematic offerings for youngsters nowadays.


The people who bash this movie were looking for it to be as cool and slick as the first one, which this isn't. This movie was supposed to be the complete opposite as Ocean's 11. This has been said by a lot of the cast members and also the director, Steven Soderbergh. Ocean's 12, while it did lack a gripping plot, is being bashed because it was different then what people wanted. If it were released before Ocean's 11, it would be taken much differently, not as a failed sequel. The problem with sequels is people go into it with a preset idea of what it should be like it and have lots of expectations. They should go into this movie with an open mind and not expect it to be 'Ocean's 11, again'.


A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.

Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.

Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.

I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.


You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for 'Bushy Bill' eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking 'pay-dirt' and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of 'Aqua Velva' on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe 'Leaves' the 'Island' when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!


This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the 'lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies' cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.

And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.


When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as 'brilliant' or 'fun' or 'better than the original Grease,' you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.

If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.

For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows

1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way ('Score Tonight,' 'Reproduction,' 'Do It For Our Country,' and 'Prowlin'') without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.

2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds.

3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.

I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.


This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.


The most remarkable thing about 'Talk Radio' is how bad it is. The callers' voices all have a phony, reading-from-a-script ring to them. An evening with an annoying loudmouth at a Dallas radio station is told with the portentousness of a Sartrean glimpse into Hell. Stone tries for an existential revelation and gets unintended comedy instead. Whenever a caller makes a 'profound' (empty) point about something, Stone shoves the camera at one of his character's face as they are stricken with some traumatic realization that is never revealed to the audience. Bogosian overacts throughout in one of the most irritating performances ever smeared onto celluloid. Underrated classic? Give me a break.


Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from 'Newwww Yoke Ceety'.

I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the 'swamps' of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the 'swamps' or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases 'homuh-sex'l' in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.

This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with 'Hollywood' being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation.


Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.

However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too.

So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what 'Miyako' is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of 'exotic Japan'.


'Blind Date' is one of three stories-made-into-movie by author Vida Hurst. Lots of familiar faces in this oldie from 1934. Mickey Rooney as a mouthy little punk. He seems to be in the film for comedic and homey 'family values'. Jane Darwell again plays the strong-willed mother, just as she had in Grapes of Wrath and the Oxbow Incident. Ann Sothern is Kitty, who has been dating Bill (Paul Kelly), but meets up with rich Bob Hartwell, played by Neil Hamilton, who may or may not be better for her. You can certainly tell that this was made at the very beginning of the Hays production code -- at one point, Kitty says she can't be up there alone with him if there isn't anyone else in the house...what a change from just a year or two prior, when anything and everything was OK. Good solid plot, but a whole lot of conversation and mushy love talk. It raises the question over what a girl should be searching for in a man; should she hold out for a man with integrity who treats her nice, or just find a man with big bucks, as most of the movies from the previous 20 years had advocated...? and how do men change when their situation changes ? watch out for some violence in the strange dance marathon scene. TV viewers from the 1960s will recognize Hamilton as Commissioner Gordon from Batman..... Also some weird drama in the off-screen lives for some of the cast in this one --Paul Kelly had gone to jail for being accessory to murder in a love triangle. Mickey Rooney had an affair with Norma Shearer, who was 20 years older; Rooney ended up being married eight times. Tyler Brooke (Emory) and Spencer Charters (Pa) both knocked themselves off in real life. The title 'Blind Date' has been reused many times, for films, TV series, and even cartoons, but none of them seem to have the same plot as this one.


With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.


Made me think about it for days after seeing it. That to me is the mark of a great movie. Eyes Wide Shut had the same effect on me. I am tired of these people requiring these happy Hollywood cookie-cutter endings. I am planning on going to see it again tonight to understand the plot a little better - but regardless, the emotional messages of the movie were totally felt.


I actually belong to the demographic Zoey 101 specifically is trying to target, so I can see that as much as it tries to be relatable to people my age, the premise is simply too ludicrous for an average person to relate to. The show revolves around the wealthiest boarding school in existence, and the lovely, incredibly tan, attractive gang of one-sided characters who inhabit it. As is the tradition amongst kids networks, the cast is an array of skinny white kids, with the token black guy, of course.

The story lines all revolve around Zoey and her gang of friends stumbling upon or creating some sort of minor dilemma, such as not wanting to attend gym class, resulting in Zoey devising a scheme to save the day for all her friends. There is generally a B-line revolving around either a one- sided guest character, or placing supporting characters in completely unrealistic situations, such as having a hive of wasps in a dorm room and no one noticing. These plots often play off stereotypes, such as any character who pulls good grades in math must by default completely lack social skills. The majority of episodes have the continuous and overused will-they won't-they Chase-Zoey dynamic.

The characters, unfortunately, are all incredibly one-sided; there is Zoey, the perfect girl with a solution to literally everything,Chase, the constantly lovesick still but rather endearing Best Friend, Michael, the token black guy (kudos to Christopher Massey for managing some genuinely funny one-liners), Lola, the theater chick (meaning she dies her hair and 75% of her dialogue is about her dreams of stardom, despite the fact that she never does anything in the actual theater), Logan, the womanizing narcissist, Dustin, the spazzy little brother, and Quinn, the science geek. The few words I spent on each of these characters sum up each character entirely.

Zoey 101 does manage to be entertaining at times, but the serious flaws in the system of values it promotes are a major turnoff. Zoey, who is set up as the obvious role model and quasi-feminist crusader and who is on the surface portrayed as flawless, still manages major character flaws. For example, when Lola was first introduced, she was believed to be a goth girl. Zoey tried to use this as an excuse to kick her out of their shared dorm room for being 'freaky'.

As for the acting, it is quite clear that Jamie Lynn Spears landed this role because of her name, not because of talent. Although she has definitely improved as time goes by, it is clear she is not a born actress, which greatly affects the quality of the show, as most of the plot lines revolve around her character. The supporting cast is surprisingly good, especially considering the material they have to work with. They deliver quite a few good one-liners for comic relief, if the plot hasn't yet ventured into obscurity.

All in all, Zoey 101 is a flawed view at high school life, and anyone past their Limited Too years shouldn't expect much from it.


Here's a review for people like me. This movie sucks from beginning to end. I threw popcorn at the screen and resorted to entertaining myself a la MSF2000. The plot hinges on chance happenings and relies on stupidity from people who are supposed to be smart. The lead falls for a con man and it doesn't occur to her that she might get conned????? And she's rich???? And she's a famous psychologist????? COME ON, people. She enters the bar at just the most convenient moment when everyone is assembled to talk about conning her??? That was so staged that it felt like slap in the face to even half-witted movie viewers. Rain man would have been insulted. I also admit that I despise Mamet dialogue with the kind of passion that some people have for meat-eaters, war-starters, and fur-wearers. My hatred is so complete that it defies logic. But I'll give it a shot. That it's not supposed to sound real is fine. I don't care. It's that everyone talks the SAME. Mamet can't create characters; all he can do is foist his voice on us relentlessly through different actors. No wonder his actors are so wooden. They're confused about everyone being the same character. (However, his later films do improve.)


CREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine.


This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.

The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.

One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.

The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's 'Psycho' as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.

While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.

All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy/Jason/Scream/Michael Myers/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en.


...the first? Killjoy 1. But here's the review of Killjoy 2:

(contains spoilers, so beware readers)

Oh my. Oh, my, my, my. I'll start off with telling you that I had no hopes in the least bit that this movie would be good. Considering that Killjoy (the first movie) is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, the sequel didn't have much promise.

As expected, it didn't deliver.

The deaths were even lamer than in the first movie. There was absolutely no eye candy whatsoever, and every single prop looked so fake that I wouldn't be surprised if they had a kindergarten class make them.

Look, I don't even know where to begin. Hm, for starters, the movie wasn't even feature length. It was only an hour and eight minutes long (68 min.), but then again, ending it early was actually a reprieve. In fact, that's the only reason that this movie wasn't as bad as the first, because the first was longer.

Usually, I don't give spoilers in reviews, but since I don't want any of you to go through the torture of watching this waste of film, I'm going to spoil away. Not that there's much to spoil.

Let's start with the ending. KILLJOY IS THE PUSSIEST KILLER EVER. It takes explosions, firebombs, guns, etc. to kill all of the normal serial killers in horror movies. Guess what it took to kill Killjoy? A F***ING GLASS OF WATER. No lie. In the end, a girl picked up a cup of water and threw the water on Killjoy's face. Then Killjoy started screaming, and they tried to make it look like his face was melting by putting dried rubber cement on his forehead. Then he laid there, and the people went to sleep.

Now let's hit the acting. VERY TERRIBLE. Not even one person was believable in the least bit. I don't even know what to say, other than it looks like they just hired a few hobos living on the streets to act in this film.

Seriously, I honestly doubt that they spent any more than 100 dollars total to make this movie. They had nothing. Most of it took place in the woods, which wouldn't have cost them anything to film on. The actors weren't giving in any effort whatsoever, so it's blatant that they were probably 'working' for free. They didn't have any kind of special effects or nice props, and they probably used ketchup for the blood. Hell, who am I kidding? They probably didn't even spend 100 dollars. They probably spent $3.29 on a bottle of ketchup and that was it. A f**kin' movie made with a budget of $3.29.

For Bob's sake, they couldn't even afford to rent a cop uniform. In the end, after Killjoy dies, the girl wakes up and says 'Where is he?' and the main woman replies, 'He's gone.' Then, suddenly, some fat goofy guy with scars on his face pops out of nowhere with a cell phone saying 'You have a phone call.' The girl answers and says 'Oh, hi mom!' and smiles. Then the fat goofy guy walks along to reveal that it's a police officer. However, he's wearing khaki pants, and a regular button up green shirt, with a lame badge on the front pocket. Hell, it was probably the badge that the director got when he was in safety patrol in 3rd grade. Then they all got into a tan blazer and drove off as the credits rolled. They couldn't even get a police cruiser so they just got a tan blazer. F**kin' lame. Killjoy didn't even have the ice cream van that he had in the first movie.

Killjoy is without a doubt the most flamboyantly gay slasher EVER. If there was a slasher that wore hot pink spandex and carried a rainbow flag, he STILL would not be as gay as Killjoy. Killjoy isn't funny either (and believe me, he DID try to be).

The only good thing about this movie is an extremely lame threat given by one of the delinquents. Somebody makes a comment to some boy about not passing third grade, to which the boy responds, 'I'll show you third grade!' in a threatening manner. That has to be the absolute worst threat that I've ever heard. 'I'll show you third grade!'

This movie doesn't even work on a 'so bad, it's good' level. It's filth. Unless you did something bad, and you are feeling so guilty about it that you want to punish yourself severely, DON'T watch this movie.

Just remember; if a flaming homosexual clown with a huge black afro tries to bore you to death with gay jokes (and attempt to kill you at the same time), just throw some water at him. Case closed.

FINAL RATING: .1 out of 10


I remember watching this when it was made and thinking it was brilliant at the time. Watching it for the second time nearly 20 years later, I still think Traffik is brilliant and much better than the US film that was based on this drama.

It should also be watched by all our come today gone tomorrow politicians who think they can win the war on drugs, as the issues raised in this film are as pertinent today as they were back then at the end of the 80s, and unless they change their policies, will be so in another 20 years.

Well written, well made, beautifully acted and superbly filmed. A thought provoking drama that entertains as well as brings to light some of the hard realities of the criminal drug trade.


Having seen Charley Boorman in Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor, I was very interested to see how Charley would be in his own show. I thought Charley came across as a lovely guy who is very grounded and down to earth. Its nice to see that celebrities struggle with their weight and fitness, it just show's their human too! I don't know a lot about bikes, but this show gripped me right from the start. The preparation and organising for this event seems immense. The event itself seems very dangerous and I'm fascinated to see why Charley and everyone else is doing it and how far he gets. I love the pace of the show and the fast upbeat music. I can't believe he broke his collar bone, I really hope its not the end, I cant wait to see the next episode...


Like a very expensive Buffy episode peppered with plenty of humor. Lots of wire and stunt kung fu. The Twins Effect goes on the list of classic must see HK films. The vampires have a cool blend of hopping ghost type and the pretty boy European style. If you get the opportunity to see this one in the theatre it is worth a 30 minute drive, otherwise buy the import DVD before someone screws it up by giving it a bad dub.


The last (I believe) of the movies The Boys made with Hal Roach, this is also the last truly funny film they made, before going to 20th century fox, which so famously misued their talents. Although there are weak moments - the business with the 'lung tester', for instance, is a bit, ah ... overblown (but worth having, just to see 'Dr.' Jimmy Finlayson) - but on the whole this flick is a good summary of what the boys brought to the screen. Richard Cramer (uncredited) appeared in other L&H flicks, and he is delightfully threatening here as the convict Nick Granger. The scene where The Boys have to eat their own synthetic meal ('Looks good, smells good, and it probably tastes good. Eat it.') is one of my favorite moments in the oeuvre. Stan & Ollie will always be pleasant companions in the lives of their millions of devoted fans.


It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.

The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.

All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.

3.5/10


Vijay Krishna Acharya's 'Tashan' is a over-hyped, stylized, product. Sure its a one of the most stylish films, but when it comes to content, even the masses will reject this one. Why? The films script is as amateur as a 2 year old baby. Script is king, without a good script even the greatest director of all-time cannot do anything. Tashan is produced by the most successful production banner 'Yash Raj Films' and Mega Stars appearing in it. But nothing on earth can save you if you script is bland. Thumbs down!

Performances: Anil Kapoor, is a veteran actor. But how could he okay a role like this? Akshay Kumar is great actor, in fact he's the sole saving grace. Kareena Kapoor has never looked so hot. She looks stunning and leaves you, all stand up. Saif Ali Khan doesn't get his due in here. Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Phawa and Yashpal Sharma are wasted.

'Tashan' is a boring film. The films failure at the box office, should you keep away.


If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: 'Go out and try to score more points than the other guy.'


A paranoid scientist creates a wolfman by transfusing wolf blood into a meek, quiet, but very large gardener, in order to prove an hypothesis. So the gardener begins nightly rampages and the scientist tries to use him to reclaim his credentials, but is rebuffed by his former colleagues for tampering with nature. Island of Dr Moreau, Frankenstein and various wolfman films all blended together into a terribly dated, goofy, morality play.

Though the subject matter is pedantic and unoriginal at best, this film is not too poorly made, and interesting to watch as a representative of horror film making of its time. Like most mad scientist films, this is a weak warning against fooling around with Mother Nature. It doesn't have the power or intellectual challenges of Frankenstein, but it doesn't ever extend its reach anyway. The acting is passable, as is the cinematography, and the film moves along at an entertaining clip. Some of the dialog is utterly ludicrous, but hey... it's just a movie - and a B minus one at that. There are also a few nice shots of a wolf, and a smattering of humor tossed-in to prevent the film from appearing to take itself too seriously - always a plus for this genre.


It is so gratifying to see one great piece of art converted into another without distortion or contrivance. I had no guess as to how such an extraordinary piece of literature could be recreated as a film worth seeing. If you loved Bulgakov's book you would be, understandably, afraid of seeing some misguided interpretation done more for the sake of an art-film project than for actually bringing the story's deeper meaning to the screen. There are a couple examples of this with the Master and Margarita. As complex and far-fetched as the story is, the movie leaves out nothing. It is as if the filmmaker read Bulgakov's work the same way an orchestral conductor reads a score--with not a note missed. Why can't we find such talent here in the U.S. ? So now my favorite book and movie have the same title.


I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.

The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all!


I have seen the recent Region 2 DVD of this movie displayed in the 'horror' section in an Oxford Street store and also advertised as a 'classic thriller'. In reality it is almost solely a vehicle for Arthur Askey, one of the most popular names in British comedy and light entertainment for over four decades.

Perhaps his incessantly cheerful, exuberant and essentially good-natured humour comes as a bit of a culture shock to many accustomed to the sour and cynical flavour of much British comedy of the past twenty five years. However there are still those who appreciate his lively and cheery persona and total avoidance of pathos. Askey was an idol of the great Tommy Cooper who frequently borrowed the 'self-strangulation' gag that Arthur attempts to entertain the stranded passengers with.

There is a striking, rare appearance by the under-rated Linden Travers, who makes an impact as the mysterious Julie.


A great idea: 11 stories about 11 September. 11 directors from different countries with different results. Ken Loach talking about an immigrant (as usual) is just brilliant (as usual). The Frenchman does a very good job also, while the Burkina Faso film was a nice surprise. However, the Israel film was a bit boring, and the Mexican guy, well, he should quit directing and work in a Mexican restaurant. 8/10


If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!!


So when Bob and Marion Boxletter see a guy at a hotel, Marion believes it is her long lost brother Brian, but when she approaches him he appears to be someone else just with the exact same face. Marion manages to get his fingerprints and takes it to the police and when the identity is confirmed that it was in fact her brother Brian she and Bob leave for New York after tracing his whereabouts. They get a hold of Brian, but still he doesn't know what they are talking about, but all the couple really want to know is where Brian has their 8 maybe 9 year old son Joey... and even when they see Joey he doesn't know them either. The plot thickens and they find themselves one day thinking that they are someone else as well. Experiments made out on people only to make the perfect assassins yet the question of why they would bother putting Bob and Marion in the same building as each other is beyond me. Personally Gregory Harrison played his 2 parts great, but I have no clue what was wrong with the other actors, they seemed bored and lost. 3 out of 10, a little suspense yes but that's it.


I remember catching this film on a C4 screening a year ago and I was completely blown away by the whole thing. I thought the film managed to represent such a diversity of genres; the supernatural, a love story, the intrigue of crime, and so many more.

I was hooked on the whole thing after a minute or so and was really concerned about the characters. It made me feel terrified at one second for Jimmy, and then had me laughing away at the gangsters in the next... and all the time I had my fingers crossed that things would work out for Jimbo!

Heath Ledger and Rose Bryne are superb, Bryan Brown is absolute quality and had me creasing up, along with David Field, who was funny as well as being an evil git.

Since I saw this film I managed to order it on DVD and as a result, every person I show it to has been hooked in much the same way.

This film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon or a lazy evening, and it's one that you can really appreciate with your mates around.


I'm rating this pretty high just because of Sam Elliott. I could've done without the female nudity but I'd sit through almost any nonsense in order to see Sam strut his stuff. He gets to spout wonderfully cynical witticisms, many of which I agree with, and it's a joy to see him in a role in which he actually gets to emote instead of just standing around scowling and looking virile as can be. My boyfriend opined that this movie is in a couple of ways similar to a film in which Ed Harris had a Hispanic partner (in the police sense of the term!) who was a little overeager to prove himself. You can draw your own conclusions on that score but if you like Sam, you'll like this. You could say I'm biased, but who isn't in some way? I'd buy this on DVD in a heartbeat!


Having never heard of this film until I saw the rental DVD I as a bit sceptical, there have been many films in the past with good ensemble casts that can't do anything film a bad script, and in some cases don't seem to care.

Well having just watched it there was no reason not to give this movie a theatrical release, it IS good. The story like most in this genre can seem a little forced at times but there does appear to be a good amount of realism here too that allows the momentum to carry. I was pleasantly surprised at how good a job Justin Timberlake does here too with such a major role, OK he's not Oscar material yet, but he'll learn with each role and he shows a LOT of promise for the future here. Dylan McDermott too was amazingly good in his unexpectedly nasty role and is definitely the cream of the crop in this movie.

Ultimately, just give it a go. you won't be disappointed, you won't be bored, in fact, I think you'll be more than happy with the end result.


When i went to the video rental shop to get a movie i saw this one and i immediately thought it would be funny. The picture made it seem like a classic comedy type involving teenagers (such as road trip)which i thought would be worth watching. When i turned the move on i was disappointed as the jokes were awful and cheesy. The only bit which the director may have thought would be funny was somebody slipping over on a wet floor. This is not a joke and would not make people laugh. I actually considered turning this movie off coming to half way through. I was annoyed with this movie as it was just a waste of time and money renting it out. Not enough care was taken making this film and not enough time and work put into it. I found the acting to be quite bad as well. The only time i laughed was at the extremely bad 'jokes'or actions done which were really not funny!!!. I rate this film a 1/10. I hope you found this comment useful.


I just caught this on Showtime...ewwwwwww, not even fun in a bad movie kind of way. One of the lamest monster flicks I've ever seen. Plus the TV reporter in the movie was that annoying Jerri from a past season of Survivor. The only amusing thing was that the 'secret base' was the house from Fantasy Island (and a million other movies and TV shows; the place is located in the L.A. area). I fully expected Mr Roarke and Tattoo to come out and greet the visitors. If Tattoo had gotten eaten by the snake, I might have given this movie a 2, but oh well. Watching people stand there and scream for five minutes while the Komodo or the cobra loomed over them instead of making a run for it was pretty funny, especially because you could really tell that they were just screaming at an empty spot where the computer animators would later paint in the monster. I nearly fell out of my chair, though, when in a flashback scene they brought in either the cobra or the komodo - then normal size - in some indestructible solid steel container with some air holes drilled into it. Wouldn't a wire cage have sufficed? LOL! Guess they couldn't afford to rent a real komodo and cobra. I have to remember I rent Showtime for their series and not their movies.


The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids.


I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.


In Dublin, the crippled rebel Rory O'Shea (James McAvoy) moves to the Carrigmore Residential Home for the Disabled, affecting the lives of the residents. Roy is able to understand the unintelligible speech of Michael Connolly (Steven Robertson), who was left in the shelter by his prominent father many years ago due to his cerebral palsy, and they become close friends. Rory convinces Michael to move from Carrigmore to an apartment in Dublin, and they hire the gorgeous Siobhan (Romola Garai) to assist them. Living together with Rory, Michael faces a new world, finding friendship, love and freedom and learning to survive by his own.

'Inside I'm Dancing' is a wonderful tale of friendship and freedom in a very beautiful story. The acting of Steven Robertson and James McAvoy are awesome and I do not understand how they have not been nominated to the Oscar with such magnificent performances. Romola Garai has also a top-notch performance and is extremely beautiful and sexy. The screenplay is touching, never corny and without redemption and the precise direction of Damien O'Donnell is very sensitive. Unfortunately the Brazilian title of the DVD is shamefully ridiculous, giving a wrong idea of this excellent movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Os Melhores Dias de Nossas Vidas' ('The Best Years of Our Lives')


This film was a huge surprise to me while i watched it at Cinequest in the big California Theatre in San Jose. It's a musical, which normally I don't like, but I have to say this one was different. Robert Peters, who directed the film and stared in it, did such a wonderful job. During his Q & A he told the audience that he only had two other people for his crew! Most of the dialouge was made up on the fly and he actually made the film while attending another film festival in Germany! I can't say enough great things about this movie, the only bad thing is that you really tend to notice the camera work and it shakes a bit. If you happen to come across this film- check it out!


Laughable would be a good term to describe this movie. But, since this movie deserves nothing good said of it, I'll use the term god-awful instead.

Centering around the adventures of a bunch of eco-warriors investigating the nefarious doings of the military on a semi-tropical island, the lack of a budget rapidly becomes apparent. Michael Pare (a real actor! But only in the sense that Pinocchio was a real boy...) leads the bunch of fools through a series of monster chase-and-gobble-hapless-victim scenes. There is some vague attempt at pseudo-science to explain the presence of the giant reptiles, but it convinces the viewer about as well as the acting does.

As if this doesn't insult the viewer enough, the movie also features what I'll call 'Guns of never-ending ammunition'. I never saw Mickey Parrot or his female side-kick change clips once during the entire film, yet I can positively report they cap off at least 40 rounds each in any scene where they are required to fire their weapon. Forty rounds may not seem like that many, but we are talking standard handguns here. I figure 15 round clip, tops. And remember, they never change clips, nor even appear to carry any extra ammo.

It's dumb-assery like this which consigns movies to the eternal fires of celluloid hell, and rightly so. The third-rate CGI does little to help matters and the acting is best laughed at, else you'll start crying. Why SciFi Channel repeatedly churns out this mush is anyone's guess.

My advice....give this one a wide berth...a very wide berth!


Released just before the Production Code crackdown in July, 1934, Mitch Leisen's all-star Paramount musical is leeringly suggestive -some even claim misogynistic- and highly entertaining. Two murders occur on the opening night of 'Earl Carroll's Vanities' (one on-stage!), but that doesn't stop the manager (Jack Oakie) from putting on a show as a lascivious police detective (Victor McLaglen) investigates. Everyone is hiding something and Gypsy Rose Lee must have seen this backstage murder mystery before she penned 'The G-String Murders' as the denouement is similar (although more satisfying here). Gertrude Michael, as a vicious diva, stops the show (in more ways than one) with her exotic 'Sweet Marijuana' number and Duke Ellington finishes with the truncated 'Rape Of The Rhapsody'. The hit song, 'Cocktails For Two', came from this film. A bizarre and bawdy camp classic highly recommended! Here's Louella O. Parsons in the 'Los Angeles Examiner' on May 17, 1934

Earl Carroll's hand-picked beauties' pirouette about on the Grauman United Artists screen in a fig leaf and not much else. But September Morn herself never had a better figure than these charmers, who are made up to please the eye, especially the eye of the tired businessman. But don't for a moment think Mr. Carroll's girls, au naturelle, are the only attraction. Believe it or not, MURDER AT THE VANITIES is a musical comedy thriller, if you know what I mean -a murder mystery incorporated in a musical show. It all happens on the opening night at the time the play is in progress and a search is on for a murderer. Just by way of suspense, a cop threatens to stop the show every few minutes. Victor McLaglen is something new in cops. All the time he is trying to track down the murderer, he keeps his eye fastened on the chorus beauties. The murder mystery is good with the exception of the denouement, which is pretty flat. Probably faulty direction. Dorothy Stickney, who plays the maid, is about as melodramatic as the heroine in a ten, twenty, and thirty show. For no good reason, she rates a never-ending closeup in the big dramatic scene. The girl ensembles are good, and it's a positive relief to get away from the inevitable overhead shots. The costumes are beautiful; in fact, this is a musical that Paramount can feel is really to their credit. As for Carl Brisson -well, he would be an addition to any show. Good-looking with a delightful singing voice and an easy, assured manner, he is all his press agents claim for him. I also like Kitty Carlisle, who plays the leading lady in the show. Gertrude Michael, as the deep-eyed villianess, gives an interesting if rather fictional portrayal. Jack Oakie, as the stage manager, is the same old wisecracking Jack, but we wouldn't change him. Jessie Ralph is excellent as the seamstress. Others in the cast are Charles Middleton, Gail Patrick, Donald Meek, Barbara Fritchie, Toby Wing and Lona Andre. The screen play is by Carey Wilson and Rufus King, and the direction by Mitchell Leisen. The music is by Arthur Johnstone and the lyrics by Sam Coslow. In addition to MURDER AT THE VANITIES, there is a Mickey Mouse cartoon, a Paramount Newsreel, and a two-reeler, THE WRONG DIRECTION.

I disagree with Lolly on the denouement, it's satisfying if over-the-top. Why would she blame the director? Was she displeased with the story's ending -or the way it was staged? And what's a 'ten, twenty, or thirty show'? Note the swipe taken at Busby Berkeley and his 'overhead shots'. As hard as it may be to believe today, the public was tiring of Buzz' schtick by May, 1934. Mitch Leisen said, 'if you are showing a stage show that's supposed to be in a theater, you should stay within the bounds of the proscenium arch, and not do a Buzz Berkeley routine with a stage set that's acres big.'

Q: Don't you think Berkeley's spectacular effects justified taking this liberty? ML: Apparently they did because they're reviving all of his pictures and none of mine, but personally I don't like it.


I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it ended up as one of the audience favorites. This is a spoof on the french cottage industry of OSS 117 films of the 50's and 60's. The first OSS 117 film based on the novel by Jean Bruce was brought to the screen in 1956, long before the first James Bond film, staring Ivan Desny as Hubert Bonisseur De La Bath and six subsequent action adventure spy films were made up to 1970 with Luc Merenda, Frederick Stafford, Kerwin Matthews and John Gaven all taking turns as Oss 117. Jean Dujardin is in the title role in this comedic take on the series. As the film begins set in 1945 he has a french mustache and resembles Desny but as the film begins it's setting of 1955 he really looks like Sean Connery. Jean François Halim wrote this hilarious screenplay of a spy sent to Egypt to investigate the murder of a friend. It borrows on the silliness of Naked Gun, Get Smart and the Pink Panther and uses fresh humor on current events in a delightful combination that international audiences will enjoy and I am sure this will be the only the first of more to come of a revived OSS 117 reworked to comedy adventures. Michel Hazanavicius directs. I would give this a 7.5 and recommend it.


Director Douglas Sirk scores again with this, the grandaddy of all dysfunctional family films. This lush, trashy saga is a masterpiece, beautifully combining all of the elements of Sirk's soapers and strategically placing them all into one movie. 'Written on the Wind' very obviously influenced the 1980s TV series 'Dallas' and 'Dynasty', as this is basically a feature-length version of those later nighttime soaps.

Lauren Bacall, wonderfully and subtly, plays Lucy Moore, a New York City secretary who marries oil baron, Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). Unbeknownst to both of them, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is also in love with the quiet, but sexy secretary. They all go back to Kyle's family's mansion in Texas where we meet his white trash slut-of-a-sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone in an Oscar-winning turn). Yipee! The sparks begin to fly - from the romances to the catfights, this is a campy trip. Not only does Mitch have to fight the feelings he has for his best friend's wife, but Marylee tries to sleep with everybody since she can't have her one true love who is Mitch. Topping it all off, Kyle learns he's impotent, but somehow Lucy ends up pregnant.

This is pure soap and pure melodramatic entertainment. How can you not love it? This film signals one of Universal's most popular films and one of director Sirk's best works. Some of the dialogue is absolutely sizzling and visual metaphors are thrown in every which way - the theme of wind throughout is great. The cast is great, although Bacall is completely underused despite receiving top-billing behind Hudson. Stack's Oscar loss reportedly devastated him. He considered this his finest performance and apparently was none too pleased to lose out. And he did turn out a fabulous performance as the whimpering alcoholic. What a stunning movie! This film proves what I've been thinking for ages - Sirk is the master of classic melodrama. Where's his Oscar?


My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.

Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight.


This educational show focused on emotions, interactions, and relationships. It was produced at Detroit's ABC affiliate and syndicated in 90 markets nationwide. This past week, Detroit Public TV had a 1-1/2 hour clip show as part of their pledge drive. Wow, the memories that resurfaced! While I remembered the show, there were segments that I'd forgotten about but remembered instantly a soon as they'd begin ('Hot Fudge HOLY MOLEY!', Detective Tomato and the pies in his face).

For more on the Public Television special, do a search for 'Hot Fudge Comin' Atcha Concert'


Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every 'Godfather II,' there are dozens of 'More American Graffiti's,' 'Stayin' Alives,' and 'Grease 2's.' While the original 'Grease' is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.

Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.

Reviewers have complained that, because 'Grease 2' is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for 'Our Miss Brooks' and 'Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour.' The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, 'Grease 2' is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage.


This is a cult classic for sure!!

It is tricky to follow at times, but then again, so is a film like Jacobs Ladder or even say Fight Club. If you want standard fare, then i figure go rent the Care Bears Movie or perhaps an old Disney classic. But if you want ' to view the world differently' then i would say open yourself up to Enigma's and for that matter to a film that challenges what we see and think.

For me the key is that the film was original and had me questioning throughout. So while i have seen some complaints, all in all i would say take the film for what it is and enjoy.


To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.

Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10


I gave this movie a 10 because it needed to be rewarded for its scary elements and actors AND my god the enging! The thing is I don't want to tell anyone anything about the acting or story because it will ruin the movie. But I will recommend that you go straight to your nearest moviestore right now and rent it! (Don't forget popcorn!)


After the SuperFriends and Scooby Doo left the Saturday morning airwaves in the fall of 1986, I pretty much stopped watching Saturday morning cartoons at that point since those were the only two that kept me tuning in. And since neither the Real Ghostbusters nor the Flintstone Kids seemed very promising to me, I 'retired' and started sleeping in on Saturday mornings. I only returned to Saturday morning TV in 1988 for that one year only for one and only one animated show.

A new animated show of Superman was something I was not going to pass up. I was 17 and in high school at the time, but so what! I loved this show. From what I can recall, this series was a gift to fans I suppose in celebration of Superman's 50th birthday that particular year. It had the theme music and the music style reminiscent of John Williams movie score from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman movies. I honestly felt that the animation style Ruby Spears did was reminiscent of the Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians series by Hanna Barbera a few years before. Sadly, Danny Dark was not back as Superman, but I felt Beau Weaver did a very impressive job as the voice of Superman and his Clark Kent was nerdy like the Chris Reeve version. After hearing him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic on the 90's Fantastic Four, I could still see this version of Superman in my mind. Ginny McSwain as Lois Lane. LOL! What a rhyme. She was a voice director for Hanna Barbera and Ruby Spears and I guess she took it upon herself to do Lois. Memories of the SuperFriends lingered in this series when it came to the voice over cast. Jimmy Olsen is Mark Taylor, who on the SuperFriends was formerly Firestorm. Perry White is none other than former Batman TV writer Stanley Ralph Ross, who on SuperFriends was Gorilla Grodd and Brainiac in the Super Powers shows. And Lex Luthor, now a wise cracking billionaire tycoon is none other than SuperFriends voice alum, Michael Bell, whom I know best as Zan and the Riddler as well as many other characters on many other series.

I felt this series was a combination of the movie Superman along with the post crisis John Byrne re envision of Superman, with Lex Luthor as a billionaire tycoon, Jonathan and Martha Kent being alive to see Clark as Superman. The Bruce Timm series and Lois and Clark would also do this. Unfortunately, we never saw Brainiac, Bizarro, Toyman, Metallo, or Darkseid. Other than Luthor, we saw only the Prankster and we did see General Zod. I especially enjoyed that one episode with Wonder Woman, who was voiced over by BJ Ward who played her on the Super Powers Team as well.

The episodes were smashing and I also enjoyed Clark's growing and development stories from infancy to childhood to adolescence to an adult moving to Metropolis in the short little segment, Superman's Family Album.

The only two things I didn't like. It only lasted one season. And after Wonder Woman's guest spot, I was hoping Batman would turn up voiced over by Adam West (Still thinking about the Super Powers Team episodes I guess). I also hoped for it because on the Prankster episode, the Metropolis baseball team was pitted against the Gotham Goliaths.

Every popular Super Hero has one cartoon series that is ultra rare. For SpiderMan, I feel it's the 1981 solo series that aired the same time as Amazing Friends. For the Incredible Hulk, it's the 1982 cartoon. For the Fantastic Four, it's the 1978 series with HERBIE the Robot. For Batman, it's the New Adventures of Batman 1977 by Filmation featuring BatMite. But for Superman, the rarest series is this one.

Superman books and documentaries never cover or mention it. This is another series that WB should consider for DVD release. All in all, this 1988 version of Superman is well....Super!!


What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful.


In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.

'Hellborn' or 'Asylum of the Damned' as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.

Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.

While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in 'Hellborn' every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.

The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.

Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about 'Hellborn'; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod 'horror' productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.

'Hellborn' is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10


This movie is one big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the 'local' characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the 'caucasian' characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1/2* out of ****) Watch 'Aloha Summer' (**) and/or 'Beyond Paradise'(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant.


Ever notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.

1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.

My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.

The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.

Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.


I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.

This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).

Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.

But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.

Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.

I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.

The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus!


This is a 100% improvement over the dross of a third movie and it's one hell of a good time. This is a John Hughes movie meets The Devil's Rejects. I really enjoyed this movie and it really stands out as the savior of the series. I thought Jennifer Tilly played Tiffany really well and Brad Dourif in Chucky's shoes once again really makes this movie shine. Actually they're the only good parts of the movie. I got rather bored with Katherine Heigl and Nick Stable's scenes. It's as if they were thrown in there as a sidetrack and someone to save the day. But Chucky and Tiffany were great to watch and I really liked the black humor to it. I thought it made the movie stand out more. If you want one hell of a good time then be sure to check this out.

7/10.


When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.


Ponyo is a beautiful animated film with some dark undertones. It features a kid-sized story of longing and love with ecological implications, but it is not preachy. Hayao Miyazaki has fused Andersen's Little Mermaid with Japan's native myths and his trademark steam punk flights of fancy, and the result is very rewarding. There are some scary moments of oceanside storms and flooding, but they are thrilling, not horrific.

If you've ever wanted to run with the waves along the shore, ride on a jellyfish as an elevator, completely transform yourself, or make a friend for life, Ponyo is a fable for you.


His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.

Instead, 'Doctor Detroit' gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?

It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.

One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see 'The Blues Brothers'. You want bad, see 'Doctor Detroit'.


This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10


Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.

Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.

Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.

If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.


I've been watching this every night on VH1 this past week. This is a terrific revealing portrait about the drugs epidemic and how drugs were displayed in the media during the late 60's and on through the 70's.Woodstock,Easy Rider,The Beatles,The Death of Morrison, Hendrix, Joplin are all here. Vh1 has fashioned a complete intricate portrayal of the life and times during the 'Drug Years'. From the Sanfrancisco Bay Area to Studio 54 this documentary shows the evolution and advancement of the drug business and the death and new life it breathed into the American culture.From Marijuana to LSD to Cocaine this documentary shows the ways drugs were getting into the country, the hippie movement, the conservative resistance, and how drugs effected the arts (music , movies etc.) Featuring tons of fascinating interviews and news reel footage.

Drug Films: The Trip Easy Rider Up In Smoke Reefer Madness Blow Boogie Nights


Well i do disagreed with the other comment posted. Piedras is much much better them Magnolia or any of the other films that were mentioned.

specially about non real characters, i think that someone just wrote that only because he never lived in the Spanish society like i did (and i'm not Spanish), is a very real film with real characters, very well done by one of the best Spanish actress Antonia San Juan.

about be a European film in contrast with an American film, well we different societies, personally i dislike American modern films a lot (i like the classics and some of the Andy American films but they are very few).

Is a film about the continuous Constitution of a person, liked or not we all make mistakes but some can learn about the mistakes.


POSSIBLY VERY MINOR SPOILERS

This movie is billed as the first Russian horror movie. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, 'The Witch' (its Russian title) will take a place of dishonor in the gallery of horrible Russian movies. It is based on Nikolai Gogol's story 'Viy' which is a classic in Russia. 'Based' is the key word here since no familiarity with the story is required. Instead, the less you know about Gogol, the better.

It is a unique production because we are quite used to directors taking stories from other cultures and adapting them to their own culture. The spate of American remakes of foreign films is a prime example, but then again, Sturgess turned Kurosawa's Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven with splendid results, and Kurosawa transferred Shakespeare's Macbeth into Japan to make an incredibly powerful Throne in Blood, while King Lear became a riveting Ran. However, with 'The Witch,' we have Russians transplanting a Russian classical tale onto the American soil. The movie was shot in Estonia in English with the aim of dubbing it into English using American actors and have reasonably synchronous lip movements.

As a natural consequence, lost is the colorful Ukrainian background for the story, in comes a drab American small town seemingly lifted from some outdated horror book manual. Gone is the boozy seminarian Khoma Brutus, instead we have a boozy journalist who is about to win Pullitzer prize, and who at the same time writes about X-Files-like events and frequents Miss Boobs contests. (I never thought Pullitzer prize was given for that kind of writing, now I humbly stand corrected.) In a strange nod to Russianness, the journalist is named Ivan Berkhoff. They should've named him John Smith because it is impossible to get more hackneyed, clichéd and generic than this movie.

Berkhoff goes to a town named Castleville, gets stranded on a dirt road, staggers on until he finds a dilapidated house and is rather un-welcomed by an old crone. All that to the accompaniment of a radio announcement about the forces of evil being at their most powerful, and people better staying indoors and avoiding water. Need I mention that it's raining really hard? After a few supposedly frightening scenes which had me laughing, the story finds our journalist dressed as a priest, he's mistaken for a priest, and the local sheriff tells him his daughter who died after being brutally attacked wanted the new priest to pray for her for three nights. At this point, the action supposedly starts. Those who have time to kill are welcome to it.

What is wrong with this film? Everything, starting with the dialog and down to the prop department. The dialog which I heard in Russian was clearly originally written in English, and it was compiled exclusively from clichés and platitudes picked from American films. The actors just as clearly struggled with English because the timing of their speech was labored and unnatural, and the Russian dubbing followed suit. The acting is mostly atrocious, and not only because the actors find it often difficult to talk but because they don't have anything approaching a range of facial expressions. For the most part, they're just blank or you wish they were. The only exceptions being the sheriff played by Lembit Ulfsak, a fine Estonian actor, and Arnis Lizitis who plays a wheelchair bound resident of Castleville. Oh, and a rooster of course who's absolutely natural on camera! I know actors complain of being upstaged by dogs and cats but when Nikolaev is upstaged by a rooster it is a sad testimony to the general quality of acting in the film.

There wasn't a single scary moment in the entire film, and there wasn't a single original moment in the film either. Mind you, this comment's coming from somebody who's rather inexperienced with horror. The film is filled with standard moves used in horror movie since the genre's inception. At a critical moment, the camera lingers lovingly on a kerosene lamp. The lamp promptly goes out. It must have seen a few horror movies, too. An example of supreme idiocy comes at another moment, a character jumps out of a bathtub and runs at the camera. He's wearing something the looks like loincloth! It doesn't get any more idiotic than this!

Those in Russia who liked it claim it should've been advertised as a mystical thriller. I wasn't thrilled either. It was run-of-the-mill from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the entire population of the little town behaved as if they knew exactly they lived in a horror movie, except they weren't quite sure whether it had zombies or not. Therefore, some of them acted zombie-like just in case.

The makers of the film say it's about finding faith. Such a fine collections of idiotic actions, stupidly contrived moments, and, yes, clichés, doesn't deserve to be about finding faith. The movie is so thoroughly and utterly fake it deserves only to be an exhibit in a wax figure museum.


Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.

The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.


I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie- Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was 100 years ago.

I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!!


First love is a desperately difficult subject to pull off convincingly in cinema : the all-encompassing passion involved generally ends up as a pale imitation or, worse, slightly ridiculous.

Lifshitz manages to avoid all the pitfalls and delivers a moving, sexy, thoroughly engrossing tale of love, disaster and possible redemption, while tangentially touching on some of the deeper themes in human existence.

The core story is of Mathieu, 18, a solitary, introverted boy who meets Cédric, brasher, more outgoing but just as lonely, while on holiday with his family. As the summer warms on, they fall in love and, when the holidays end, decide to live together. A year later, the relationship ends in catastrophe: Cédric cheats on Mathieu who, distraught, tries to take his own life. He survives and, in order to get perspective back on his life he returns to the seaside town where they first met, this time cloaked in the chill of winter.

If the tale was told like this it would never have the impact it does: much of it is implied, all of it happens non-sequentially.

The intricate narrative is essential to getting a deeper feeling of the passions experienced, through the use of counterpoint and temporal perspective. Fortunately, the three time-lines used (the summer of love, the post-suicide psychiatric hospital and the winter of reconstruction) are colour coded: warm yellows and oranges for the summer, an almost frighteningly chill blue for the hospital scenes and warming browns and blues for the winter seaside.

Both main actors put in excellent performances though, whilst it's a delight to see Stéphane Rideau (Cédric) used to his full capacity (I'm more used to seeing him under-stretched in Gael Morel's rather limp dramas), Jérémie Elkaim (Mathieu) has to be singled out for special mention: you can feel his loneliness, then his almost incredulous passion, then his character crumbling behind a wall of aphasia. Beautifully crafted gestures get across far more than dialogue ever could.

The themes touched upon are almost classic in French cinema: our difficulty in really understanding what another is feeling; our difficulty in communicating fully; the shifting sands of meaning The film's title 'Presque rien' (Almost Nothing) points to all of these and, indeed, to one of the key scenes in the film: In trying to understand why Mathieu attempted to kill himself, a psychiatrist asks Cédric if he had ever cheated on him 'Non enfin, oui une fois, mais ce n'était rien' (No well, yes once, but it was nothing). Cédric still loves Mathieu  he brought him to the hospital during the suicide attempt (none of which we see) and tries desperately to contact him again once he leaves  but cannot understand that he has lost him forever, because something that seemed nothing to him (a meaningless affair) is everything to Mathieu.

Whilst the film is darker than the rather unfortunate Pierre et Gilles poster would suggest, it is not without hope: we get to see Cédric's slow, painful attempts to get back in touch with life, first through a cat he adopts, then through work in a local bar and finally contact with Pierre, who may be his next love. But here the story ends: A teenage passion, over within the year, another perhaps beginning. So what was it? Almost Nothing? Certainly not when you're living it


when i saw commercials for this i was thinking 'NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!' because it was taking up 'fresh prince' slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement.


I loved it. Others have revealed spoilers, but I won't. It was an unusual premise, actually sort of weird, but I went along with it completely. Camille was a difficult part to pull off convincingly; maybe that's why some people hated it. But I think Sienna was excellent and her acting skills enabled her to nail the part perfectly - without being maudlin or ridiculous. I don't know why she was even interested in a loser like James Franco, but married him anyway. I like him as an actor and also thought he did a terrific job. He has nothing to be ashamed of. There have been movies with with similar setups e.g. 'Ghost'. I simply love Sienna Miller and went along with the situation as written in the script. I feel her great acting talent is vastly underrated, and hope it becomes more recognized by the public. I thought all of the actors played their parts very well, and hope more people get to see the movie. I highly recommend it. I was surprised that my local Block Buster store had about 10 copies available. I definitely plan to buy it.


I finally sat down and saw this film the whole way through, and I must say, I was very impressed. Michelle Rodriguez is probably one of my new favorite actresses---it's not only the fact that she *can* act, but that she chooses the roles best suited to her that are more meaningful and important than what would first seem. I've read a few comments expressing their relief that this was not some awful feminist thing as they thought beforehand, but I certainly disagree. Diana is a feminist. She follows her dreams and believes in herself contrary to what practically everyone around her thinks (with the exception of her caring brother Tiny and her trainer and manager, Hector, who proves to be more a father figure than her real parent), which is what the word 'Feminism' is all about. It's good to see films like this showcasing the true side of feminism--that they're not a bunch of manhating losers--but that they have dreams and can do anything. Diana is true to herself while still falling prey to love, and she and Adrian have a more realistic, complicated relationship rather than just something that magically works out. Girlfight is a true taste of reality and it put some faith back into my perception of people. Thanks, Michelle.

8/10 - A very important movie that's relatable to not just young women, but everyone wanting to go far in their lives.


Here is an innovative television drama; which so easily blends a compelling story, brilliantly drawn out character development, humour, romance, and drama into each episode. Here is a show that sings to it's own tune, whether it's audience chooses to follow or not. How many other shows on television these days so boldly change in tone from one season to the next? Where most of the other top shows on this site have found a formula that works, that brings in the viewers and the dollars and have stuck like glue to that formula (Prison Break, 24, and Desperate Housewives come to mind) - LOST takes a different route where even after achieving that plateau and that winning formula, the team of executive producers are brave enough to completely reinvent the show in order to service their higher goal of compelling storytelling. This is where LOST differentiates itself from normal television. This is how it's so defiant of conventional TV. And this is why LOST is one of the most cutting edge and innovative creations of modern television. Forget the naysayers - LOST is, has been, and always will be, there to appease it's cult following first and the general public next. But it's a testament to it's inventiveness that it's garnered a fan base which consists of the best of both audiences.


In this unlikely love triangle, set in 19th century Italy, `The Beauty and the Beast' is being turned upside down and inside out and then some: Giorgio, an army officer and the very image of male beauty, is being transferred away form his (married) lover Clara and sent to a small garrison somewhere in Piemont. There - initially much to his horror  Fosca, the grotesquely ugly cousin of his commander, develops an obsessive love for him. He suffers her passionate and demanding displays of affection out of pity and concern for her health (she is gravely ill), but becomes more and more fascinated by her  until the dramatic finale

Do not miss this most unusual love story, as twisted as it may sound. Valeria d'Obici, who deservedly won a price for her portrayal of Fosca, is as alarming as she is touching. Buy the video, read the book, go see the musical!


Cleopatra (the delicious Monica Bellucci) is challenged by Cesar (Alain Chabat): in order to prove that the Egyptians are better than the Romans, she promises to build a fancy castle for Cesar in a period of three months, without any delay. She calls the one-arm architect Numerobis (Jamel Debbuzi) and gives him two options: to be covered by gold if he accomplishes his mission, or become crocodile food if he fails. Numerobis will ask for help to Panoramix (Claude Rich), Asterix (Christian Clavier) and Obelix (Geraard Depardieu) (with Ideiafix). This movie is very funny, specially the parts where Obelix and the Pirates leaded by Red Beard participate. However, the screenwriter and the director should have noted that French is not an universal language as English is. Therefore, the jokes with words (like in Austin Powers movies, for example) does not work well for people strange to French language. French people and persons fluent in French language will certainly like these jokes, but they do not make any sense for me, that do not speak French. My vote is seven.


I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.

I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.

All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time.


I like The Wind and the Lion very much. It was a good movie. I thought that since I'm young and it was made so long ago I wouldn't like it all that good, but after I saw it, i was amazed of how good it was. My family liked it, my friends liked it, everyone I showed it to liked it. I liked it because it showed how Arabs and people in Morroco was treated during the Early 1900's, by the Germans, French, and even the Americans. If I was a High School History teacher, I would definitely show it to my student's, From a High Schooler's point of view. I give this movie a good 10 out of 10. My grandparents liked it so much they bought it for themselves. My little 3 year old cousins even sit down and watched it.

Systemoffell