It's hard to know exactly what to say about this ever so bland and dull little film. The story is predictable when not completely laughable. It's all a matter of 'dutiful gestures' which, as presented here, carry absolutely no conviction. Yes, the MGM 'production values' are gorgeous, and yes, Ms. Lamarr was exquisitely beautiful, but she and the great Spencer Tracy have absolutely no 'chemistry' together - and that's the only thing that would have made this parade of cliches at all effective... It's my understanding that this movie received poor reviews when it was originally released; the passage of time has not improved it.


This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the 'The Ring' style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.


This was a very good 1950s western, one of the better ones I've seen in a decade which featured that genre on screen and on TV. It certainly had three big actors on the marquee: Glenn Ford, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. It turns out that Ford was the star of this film while the other two stars were in supporting roles. Ford had the bulk of the dialog. He also was the 'good guy' while Robinson was the 'bad guy' and Stanwyck was twice as bad as Robinson. She played the real heavy in this film and the character she played was a little too contradictory at times.

Ford handled his starring status very ably, as he usually did - especially in westerns. He played a nice guy who didn't want to fight, was a peaceful man......but if you pushed him.....look out!

The story had a nice mixture of action and lulls, not overdoing either. It had an expansive western setting which was put to good use with the CineamaScope widescreen. It also featured realistic people in a realistic setting. That credibility with the characters, especially the supporting players, was most impressive. The men way out-shined the women in this film, acting and character-wise. Dianne Foster and May Wynn were weak - the only negatives of the production. It's easy to see why these two actresses never became stars.

Even though it is over 50 years old, this western is one you'd still find fast-enough moving to enjoy, no matter how old you are or what you're used to seeing. For classic film fans, this is almost a must with this cast and good story. Highly recommended.


A 1957 Roger Corman non epic in which a sundry bunch of characters end up in a lead lined valley (sic) just as stock footage thermo nuclear heck is unleashed. It's the end of the world. Four men with guns, two women, (one an unmarried virgin the other a Las Vegas show gird who drinks and smokes - guess which one makes it to the end of the movie?) Time passes, tensions develop (or are supposed to). Something is in the woods eating radioactive rabbits. A mutant monster! Seven weeks of radioactive dust has performed 'a million years of evolution' (on an already living human) the result is a laughably bad, zip up the back, rubber monster who is strangely scared of their only source of fresh water. It rains. The monster dissolves. The remaining two characters, the Hunk and the Virgin. set out to repopulate the world as the caption 'The Beginning' fills the screen after it transpires that the brief shower of rain had washed all the radioactivity away and dissolved all the monsters running around 'out there'.

The only thing of real note about this is the incredible amount of 'curtain acting' that goes on in it. One of the staple elements of bad and lo budget movie making of the period was the superabundant use of curtains in the set design. It was cheap. Finished with one set-up? Pull a curtain across, drop a different piece of furniture in front of it and you have a different location in minutes without having to move the camera or change the lighting.

'Curtain acting' is a skill in which the actor will get to comment on what's going on outside any building he happens to be in ('It looks like Rain', or 'Here they come now, and it looks like they've got the sheriff with them!', that sort of stuff). He'll do this by standing to one side of the window - reaching across his body and lifting the curtain away from the window but along the axis of the shot - ie towards the camera - thus enabling him to pretend to look out and tell us what's happening off screen, without letting the audience see he's staring at the studio wall three inches away from his nose behind some cheap velvet curtains. There was a lot of that in this movie.


I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!


This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.

The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including 'furniture'--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed!

Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound.


My brother-in-law and his wife brought the movie over one night to watch on video. This should have given me the first clue that it would be horrible. It was. From the very first frame to the last this movie is terrible. It does not even quite register as a 'B' movie. Maybe an N or a P. One of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. From the rubber raptor-on-a-stick to the still-breathing corpses in the car to the beyond horrible closing lines, this movie isn't worth watching if you've received it for free.

Skip this one altogether--unless you want to play Mystery Science Theatre with your friends, it will provide good ammunition.


Unfortunately, this movie never made it to DVD. I saw it when it was first released to the theaters in 1983, and then again when the VHS was released in 1992. When I recently saw a VHS copy at a flea market, I immediately bought it. I was not disappointed. First, the obvious: Claudia Ohana is beautiful and a joy to behold. But then, the film takes you into an unreal world where you have to reflect on your values and decide what is really important to you. The movie is about a lot of things. It is about how the World Bank and large corporations exploit and enslave developing countries with their capitalist schemes to force them into a debt that they can never repay. It is about how our economic system exploits us by forcing us into debt with credit cards, mortgage, and car payment. It is about trying to save an innocence that maybe we have never really had and maybe we cannot really save. It is about good and evil and about how hard it is sometimes to tell one from the other. It raises a lot of questions but does not give answers. I think sometimes this is good. For this reason, this is a film really worth saving and seeing.


This BBC series is excellent. I am no Paleontologist, but this series gives the best historical representation of dinosaurs I have ever seen. The 3D animation and animatronics are very good and make you believe you have travelled back in time. The BBC deserves a pat on the back for such a fine series as well as Tim Haines who must have spent a great deal of time getting this series to air.


Nynke is a classy filmed movie in the same style as the Oscar winning film Character (1997). But this comparison immediately urges me to add that the latter was quite more exciting...

Sure, Nynke is a beautiful historic & costume drama (with fantastic acting by Monic Hendrickx!) in which you witness the personal growth of 'Nynke van Hichtum' in her marriage to Pieter Jelles Troelstra. The subtitle of this movie is 'a lovestory'. So it starts, and ends with their marriage.

But THAT is where the director makes a crucial mistake! Nynke's exciting, independent life started when the marriage ended. She wrote several children's books and travelled around the world. What a great life she has lived. But Pieter Verhoeff puts Nynke back in the trammels of convention that depressed her and that she struggled out of: the thought that her life extended just her marriage to Troelstra, being no one else but the mother of their kids.

Let's all hope for Nynke II!


William Shakespeare's plays are classified as comedy, tragedy, or history. Some of his most memorable --and most often read -- creations provide us with wistful humor, gentle poetry and hilarious slapstick. Some of them survive as unforgettable dramas of compelling depth and gravity. Regardless, he was able to write with unparalleled skill and inventiveness, contributing greatly to our young language. So in what category lies The Merchant of Venice ? I was very surprised to find it is one of Shakespeare's comedies. I had never before read it nor seen it, but after watching this most recent film version I have decided it is neither and it is both. This is one of many questions the viewer must try to answer when coming to terms with what is clearly a perplexing and deeply troubling moral tragedy.

The players are introduced quickly, and simply. One of them, firstly, is Venice itself; director Michael Radford filmed the Venetian scenes in the actual city, creating an impressively vibrant, bustling backdrop to the play's proceedings. To this scenery enters the youthful Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), returning to Venice to see a dear old friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons). It seems the poor Bassanio has heard of a princess whose father has died and has left to any potential suitors a lottery of sorts. Waiting at the fair lady's island estate are three small trunks,

only one of which contains 'images of the princess'. He who can guess the right one, using only blind intuition and the cryptic teasers written upon them, will be bestowed the father's huge fortune for life. Oh, and his daughter and her eternal love in marriage, I forgot to mention. Here the light comedy of Shakespeare takes over the movie. This farcical plot element drives the story and also fills up much of the film's screen time, as a number of painfully eager opportunists arrive at the island, humorously vying for and failing to earn this very wealthy hand in marriage. But before any of this occurs Bassanio, very much lacking in finances, entreats Antonio to loan him three thousand ducats to pay for the lengthy journey he must take to have his shot at the prize.

Antonio, himself nearly penniless, must reluctantly embrace humility by seeking the financial aid of Shylock (Al Pacino), one of countless Jewish usurers who keep the sagging economy afloat yet are scorned and persecuted to no end by the city's zealously Christian majority. Thus they dwell in society's underbelly, and it is here the two borrowers must go. Shylock does not hesitate to remind the two men of a certain incident where Antonio insulted and spat on him in the city market, and he proudly rebukes this man who frankly has a lot of nerve now coming to ask for help. But help him Shylock does. He even erases any kind of interest on the loan, most likely feeling he has no reason to be concerned if Antonio will be able to repay him within three months. Still, Shylock's one contractual demand is a pound of Antonio's flesh, should he renege on their agreement. This is an unsettling request, to be sure, for Antonio and Bassanio as well as for us. But it appears that despite his justifiable pride Shylock does not really anticipate seeing such a gruesome act occurring.

So here the dramatic groundwork has been laid. And while the film goes off to explore its gentler side with its love lottery and mistaken identities, there still looms the gloomy prospect of the loan itself. In the end, what will become of this ominous agreement? Meanwhile we are left at turns to explore the true central character of Shylock. Al Pacino has ample dramatic weight to carry here, and he does so with convincing grit and passion. There are times when he is given room for the theatrics we have come to expect from such a colorful actor. But his most impressive scenes are the ones where he internalizes this energy, showing a conflicted personality: honest, sincere, and proud, yet brooding, vengeful and entirely remorseless. This is one of Pacino's most heartfelt performances to date. And while the rest of the cast play their roles creditably and convincingly, it is Pacino who really owns the film -- especially toward the end, when Shakespeare upends this seeming romantic comedy with a wallop of a third act.

I shall not reveal much here; all I can say is that it involves the initial loan -- a mighty shoe one expected would drop sooner or later. And does it ever. By the end Shakespeare has raised a host of dilemmas for his audience: seemingly unresolvable questions of faith, morality, law, and mercy are thrown before us through the final scenes, and while by curtain's close the playwright's position may seem clear to some, we are left completely at odds. There are winners and losers in this one, but have the winners earned their spoils with good reason, or have they in a larger sense ended out losing as well? Has virtue been rewarded, or simply flouted? Has justice in fact this time been just? By the play's finish some fates are painfully clear, and unequivocally sealed. But the audience are to be the ones who really decide the verdict for all of those involved. And for some the verdict is still out for the play as well. Comedy or tragedy? The author has cunningly veiled the intense courtroom finale with an ending of light mirth and pat romantic resolutions. Is he saying that all is well that ends well, or is this his final, ironic condemnation? The play's humor serves to set us up nicely for such a heavy crash. And while it is also what unfortunately keeps The Merchant of Venice from achieving the greatness of so many of Shakespeare's other works, it is still engaging, amusing, and thought-provoking beyond measure.


This movie just happened to be on HBO yesterday so I watched it. This was a mistake. I guess I got sucked in and kept watching although it was a lot like a train wreck, terrible, horrible, but somehow you just can't look away. shaudenfraud I guess! ; ).

This is the story of a photoshoot for models on some island in the Caribbean. One by one they are all murdered. One drinks cleaning fluid, one gets blown up on a waverunner, one goes over a cliff...so these are NOT accidents, but for some inane reason the police are never called and no one thinks that perhaps they should 'wrap' the shoot and go home, not just in respect for the dead, but perhaps out of fear for their own lives. No. They just continue with their shoot because THAT is what's most important. Forget about the dead models, we have a magazine to produce!

One of the subplots is the Evil magazine owner, played by Lee Majors, Rex is his name. He is the most obvious suspect and every time a model gets killed he twirls his mustache and says 'well, I can't say this won't be good for sales', mooo hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha ha'. So absurd. Another subplot is when it's revealed that Rex is one of the models baby dady, only when he learned of the baby he tried to convince the girl to abort. She didn't, but always resented him for even suggesting this.

They try to give you false clues and point toward some guy named Raule, seemingly because he's the only one with an accent and 'looks creepy'.

At the very end (sorry to spoil, but this movie came out years ago so if you haven't seen it by now...) one of the women was found face down dead in the pool. THIS was the Last straw!!!! Vanessa Angel, forget her characters name comes at Rex with a gun, they struggle, the gun fires and now SHE'S dead too!!! While she's laying on the floor his business associate tells him that with all this bad press the magazine will be worthless and it's all his fault. He gets him to sign over the magazine to him. Once he does voila! All the dead models come back to life and you find the entire thing was an elaborate ruse to get back at Rex.

Oy! What a ridiculous movie. As someone else said; if you want to see something like this April Fools Day is far better!


This German horror film has to be one of the weirdest I have seen.

I was not aware of any connection between child abuse and vampirism, but this is supposed based upon a true character.

Our hero is deaf and mute as a result of repeated beatings at the hands of his father. he also has a doll fetish, but I cannot figure out where that came from. His co-workers find out and tease him terribly.

During the day a mild-manner accountant, and at night he breaks into cemeteries and funeral homes and drinks the blood of dead girls. They are all attractive, of course, else we wouldn't care about the fact that he usually tears their clothing down to the waist. He graduates eventually to actually killing, and that is what gets him caught.

Like I said, a very strange movie that is dark and very slow as Werner Pochath never talks and just spends his time drinking blood.


I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it?


ANY GUN CAN PLAY (2 outta 5 stars) Totally routine 'spaghetti western' starring that guy who used to play 'Kookie' on '77 Sunset Strip'. The plot is some convoluted nonsense about some stolen gold coins and various gunmen of dubious motivation trying to track it down. This is one of those 'lighthearted' westerns... which means lots of labored attempts at 'comedy'... and some really atrocious music during most of the action sequences (you can tell this isn't Ennio Morricone's work). George Hilton plays a bounty hunter called 'Stranger'... but he doesn't leave much of an impression... he just doesn't have the style of Clint Eastwood or Franco Nero, who are able to do a lot with a sparsely-written character. The ending is a complete homage/parody of the ending of 'The Good, The Bad and the Ugly'... though it's barely amusing enough to be considered a 'parody'. The highlight of the movie is the first 5 minutes... which features actors patterned after Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and someone else (Is he supposed to be Eli Wallach? Franco Nero? It's not very clear...) who are confronted by Stranger. It's an amusing in-joke for fans of Sergio Leone fans and spaghetti western aficionados... but I imagine no one else would see the point.


This is without doubt the worst movie i have ever seen. And believe me, I have seen a lot of movies. The unbelievable twist the movie makes - going from an extremely bad 'Alien lifeforms inhabit earth' movie with sickening bad acting, to a film that tries to spread an Archchristian 'Judgement day is at hand, seek Jesus or though shall burn for all eternity in the fiery debts of hell' message - left me stunned after being tormented for 85 minutes. Even religious Christians must be ashamed or furious by watching their beliefs being posted like this. I didn't know what to do with myself when I watched the horrible acting that could have been performed by 7-year-olds. Simply disgusting. I am not a Christian nor very religious. But if I had been, I would no longer be afraid of Hell. Rich Christiano has shown be something much, much worse.


Hello all--for what it's worth, I'm in a doctoral program on Indonesian politics and returned this semester after about a year's fieldwork, most of it in Jakarta.

I'm a big movie fan generally, so I went out as often as I could, and bought tons of local VCDs while I was there. This one I saw in the theater, since it opened while I was there, and, thankfully, closed soon after.

Who was the intended audience for this film? The spoiled wives and daughters of the Indonesian super-elite whose antics are weakly and ineffectively parodied? The vast majority of Indonesians who could never afford even a single dish, let alone a full meal, in the film's central restaurant location? Or gay Indonesian males, whose dilemma in the country's Muslim-dominated society is reduced to absurdly simplistic, how-to-respect-yourself preaching.

If all this wasn't bad enough, the soundtrack was either recorded or mixed so ineptly that even native-speaking Indonesians couldn't hear many of the lines.

In brief, if you're looking for a cutting-edge gay-themed film from a region of the world that seems among the least likely to produce such an animal, forget it. 'Westler' from the early '80s, or 'My Beautiful Laundrette,' from the same era, succeed far better in putting a happier face on dealing with homophobia, and do so by showing not telling through incessant, wordy scenes.

Overall, an unfortunate waste of money in a country that still can't educate all of its children nor keep them healthy.


Let's just say that it might be the worst movie I've ever seen. On the front of the box of the movie it says something about it resembling Reservoir Dogs. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This is just a warning message to anyone who might read this. It's not even worth renting when you want something to laugh at.


The best thing from the American Pie 'bakery.' I found the humor and the plot to be far more engaging audience than any of the American Pie movies to date. .Also concerning the appropriateness of the content I found this to be acceptable to a much larger audience than any of the previous American Pie movies. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie experience. When the movie first came out I read a number of negative reviews and ended up not going to see it while it was still in the theater...I now regret that decision. The movie far exceeded my expectations in terms of plot, dialog/scripting, and overall quality. I give it two thumbs way up!


This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie 'Sholay', but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both 'bad yet funny' friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life!


This movie is never going to be on a list of the top 50 films of all time, but if you're compiling a list of 'fun films', this isn't a bad place to start. Liv Tyler is amazing, captivating and luscious, and everyone else is dead-on right for their parts. It's a 21st century counterpart to 'Tom Jones' -- in other words; just good, bawdy fun. I think that this may be Tyler's breakthrough film on her way to major stardom. With no nudity she oozes sex in this film. It's no wonder all the boys give her toys. How could they help but do that for a helpless, innocent such as Liv's Jewel?


Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. 'How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy'? Gary Busey is know for his 'B' movies, but this is a sure 'W' movie. (W=waste).

Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is 'confused' as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.


Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.


No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?

The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!

Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check.

Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.

What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...

The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds.

You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate.


Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 2002 film Distant (Uzak)- his third feature film (his first was 1997's black and white The Small Town- Kasaba), is a significant step up from his good but flawed 1999 film Clouds Of May (Mayis Sikintisi). The earlier film had potential, but reeked of a small budget and improvised quality in the worst ways- plot holes and wooden acting from amateurs. That Clouds Of May succeeded on any level was a testament to Ceylan's talent as a budding filmmaker. However, Distant is Ceylan's arrival on the international scene as a great artist, one who has many of the same qualities as other great filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman (although his screenplay is not as dialogue-heavy it is just as brooding, and he lacks Bergman's penchant for close-ups- his shots are usually long shots for exteriors and medium shots for interiors) and Yasujiro Ozu (whose penetrating scenes of contemplation Ceylan reconfigures). The bulk of the film takes place in snowy hibernal Istanbul (the fact that it snows in Turkey will likely surprise some), which lends the film a definite Bergmanian feel, as well as reminding one of some of the bleak snowy urban images from Krzysztof Kieslowski's The Decalogue. The natural images invoke the best of Werner Herzog- as they tend to go on a beat or two longer than standard film theory would dictate- which is what makes them even more memorable, while the urban landscapes range from the nearly Precisionist compositions of Michelangelo Antonioni to the cultural hagiography of Woody Allen- one shot of a bench overlooking water is a direct quotation (read steal) from Manhattan, save the lack of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background. In another scene, Ceylan similarly quotes a famous shot of a ship in the harbor from Ozu's Tokyo Story. Yet, like all great artists, Ceylan makes his appropriations his own art, by slightly altering them and keeping them apropos to his own film's needs. Distant is a film whose title suffuses the characterization within the film and the feeling some viewers will have toward them, but it does not describe the film itself, for scenes stay with one long after the film ends. Perhaps the most memorable scene and image of the film comes when Mahmut stalks his ex-wife at the Istanbul airport, and watches her with her new husband as they head to board the plane that will remove her from his life forever. As he watches her, from a distance, we see her catch just a glance of him watching her. Will she leave her husband and return to Mahmut? Not in this film. He pulls back behind a column, and Nazan merely turns her head back to her future. Mahmut is her past, and she knows how to best move on- just keep moving. Mahmut will never get it. Most rarely get such moments of insight into themselves of life. That some viewers will get the film, and that Ceylan gets his own powers of creation, shows that ignorance can teach, as long as one moves about it. Distant does, albeit it at just the right length.


A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put 'Puss gets the boot' on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.

My Grade: C-


This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production.


Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever made

The Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great cast

The story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times before

I watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it.

This movie sucks

Do not watch it,

Watch paint dry instead


The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer!


If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!


As someone already said the Living Dead Dolls were cute and if they came out as a new series of Wicked little things I would buy one, or two. Well basically this film was dark, not in the scary sense but in that I cant see kinda way. And it was boring. Three females in a house, the youngest told not to go into the woods under any circumstances (well that didn't sink in) and it would have been better if that advice had involved their death. And doesn't anyone do any cleaning or whitewashing or something, you would think a lot of coughing would ensue. A sexy young mum where you waste your time trying to figure her age (by my calculations 34 or 36.) And it looked like it had been longer than 20 years since someone had lived there so what was with the fathers young adult photos on much older album? I am so tired of clichés that is just lazy writing, and here they come in thick and fast. Teens getting stoned and drunk in car and well you know where that leads....death and apparent deafness too as Tim seems oblivious to his friends scream. I mean I have pushed many a car where the instructing driver did not scream and I heard them. Cliché weird man in the woods who no one believes. Plumber who has lived in them there parts for years and this is his first experience with said children, so that driving along he avoids pickaxe wielding youngster in dead of night... run him over you idiot! Cliché... roaming about in woods without a clue about where you are going, armed with knowledge that pick-axe wielding kids (yes them again) are out and about. Senseless scene the brutalising of pig... why do so many directors see no problem with animal mutilation and slaughter? I would have much rather seen the kiddies run up and bit people on the thighs than this. Zombies don't appear to have that much energy in other films.The villain well how ineffectual was he? His big part was in the shop.. tramping in and demanding to be served first. What a none eventful man he was. Why not kill him earlier, before the family got there and avoid the movie being made, or remake it differently. I give my marks to the house, the woods and the little Goth dollies I want one!


Some have compared this film to Deliverance. I believe Of Mice and Men is more appropriate. Our leading man, Heaton, definitely loves Spike. It is irrelevant and immaterial whether that is a sexual love. It is the reason Heaton does not leave Spike. He needs him. They need each other. As brothers, as family, as their only connection to humanity. The setting, scenario, minimal cast all add up to a fine film. Frankly, I did not care what happened to the characters. But, I did care about what the film maker did with them. He did well with them. I spent some time wondering how the ending would resemble Of Mice and Men. The soundtrack and cinematography were compelling and intriguing.


...but it's certainly not without merit. Already writer-director Preston Sturges is experimenting with unusual cinematic effects in telling his stories, creating broadly drawn yet distinctive characters and situations, and writing clever and sometimes unexpectedly wise and compassionate dialogue. (No wonder the Coen brothers' next movie is going to be an homage to Sturges.)

The major problem is that the plot's not all the way there yet; it lacks surprise, the unexpected plot twists and sudden changes of fortune that keep viewers guessing. The coffee slogan is a lousy thing to hang the plot upon, and the ending is thoroughly predictable. Frank Capra does this sort of thing much better.

If you're new to Preston Sturges, check out 'The Lady Eve' or 'Sullivan's Travels' or 'The Miracle of Morgan's Creek' first. If you've seen these already, then go ahead and watch this one.


When I first saw this film on video in a department store... it intrigued me. Considering the fact that I thought I was in love and I was the same age as the youths in this film at the time (although I realize they are now old enough to be my parents), plus the soundtrack being written by Elton John & Bernie Taupin just before they 'made it big' here in North America... I figured I had nothing to lose in buying it. I was not disappointed.

So far, I have shown it to many guys I have dated since, and to my current boyfriend... obviously, they didn't find it as lovely as I do... preferring to call it a 'chick' movie... but I still laugh and cry. This film was vastly overlooked. It's good to see it's available to rent at one of the local video stores around here so that other people can share the magic.

So maybe it's a bit far fetched... but it gives you a lighthearted sense of innocence... and a renewed faith in love.


Daisy Movie Review By James Mudge From beyondhollywood.com

On paper, 'Daisy' sounds like an Asian film fan's dream come true, directed by 'Infernal Affairs' co-helmer Andrew Lau and starring everybody's favourite sassy girl, popular Korean actress Jeon Ji Hyun. Unfortunately, despite the talent involved, and the fact that the crew flew halfway around the world to shoot in Amsterdam , the film turns out to be a bit of a disappointment, being a clich'd romantic drama which wallows in misery and self importance.

The plot follows Hye Young (Jeon Ji Hyun), a rather naive Korean girl who lives in Amsterdam , spending her life working in her grandfather's antique shop and doing portraits for tourists. One day, she begins receiving flowers at exactly the same time from a secret admirer, who she believes to be a mystery man from her past who once built her a nice little bridge. One day she meets Jeong Woo (Lee Seong Jae, also in 'Holiday' and 'Public Enemy'), who unbeknownst to her is actually an Interpol agent tracking Asian criminals in the Netherlands .

With Hye Young assuming that Jeong Woo is responsible for the flowers, the two fall very slowly into a chaste romantic relationship. However, it turns out that the man sending the flowers is actually Park Yi (Jung Woo Sung, from 'Sad Movie' and 'Musa'), an assassin working for a Chinese crime syndicate. Inevitably, the love triangle turns tragic and the two men end up facing off while poor Hye Young tries to work out which of the two is the love of her life.

Although 'Daisy' is ostensibly a love story, it has the feel of a funeral, with a slow, sombre pace and a plot which piles on the misery. Half of the film's running time is taken up with scenes of the characters staring longingly out of windows into the rain, with the silence broken only by bouts of self pitying narration. Director Lau seems to be under the impression that the film is a weighty Shakespearean tragedy, rather than yet another gloomy hit-man love story. As such, the proceedings have a rather pretentious air, despite the fact that the plot is inherently predictable and based largely around glaring cliché borrowed liberally from the likes of 'Fulltime Killer' and John Woo's classic 'The Killer'.

Almost every aspect of the film is riddled with angst, with the three lead characters suffering as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders, and steadfastly refusing to do anything to pursue their romantic inclinations. Park Yi in particular, as the kind of overly emotional, socially retarded assassin so beloved of modern cinema, is faintly ludicrous, from his blatant incompetence on the job to his hilarious attempts to discuss impressionist painting with Hye Young or his penchant for flower growing. This languid passivity does make the film's central romance somewhat hard to swallow, and Lau's attempts to evoke the feeling that it is fate which brings the characters together comes across more as shoddy coincidence.

Fans of Jeon Ji Hyun should note that her character is far closer to her role in the glum supernatural drama 'The Uninvited' than 'My Sassy Girl' or 'Windstruck', and while she tries her best to pull a few wacky faces here and there, her performance is certainly more subdued.

The film benefits from glossy production values, and Lau makes good use of the Amsterdam scenery, playing on the contrast between the grey, almost Gothic beauty of the city and the innocent blue skies and flowery fields of the countryside. Unfortunately, he tends to overuse slow motion for some of the emotional scenes, which when coupled with some of the picture postcard visuals gives the film the feel at times of a perfume advert. There are a few scenes of surprisingly violent action, though these are few and far between, and whilst well staged, seem to have been thrown in as an afterthought and do little more than briefly raising the pulse.

Despite its flaws, 'Daisy' makes for engaging viewing, and the story grips almost in spite of itself, mainly out of a morbid fascination to see not which of the men Hye Young will end up with, but to see who will lie dying in her arms. The self indulgent melodrama works well enough to tick all the right boxes for the genre, and the film functions perfectly well as an enjoyably glossy, weepy romance.

It is worth noting that the DVD features the director's cut of the film, which for once indicates that it is substantially different from the theatrical version, which not only adds 25 minutes, but reorders some of the scenes, making the narrative less linear. Although this new version is perhaps too long, it is surely superior, as without these changes, the film would surely have been even more conventional and would have suffered from even murkier character development.

Wai Keung Lau (director) / Jae-young Kwak (screenplay) CAST: Woo-sung Jung . Park Yi Sung-jae Lee . Jeong Woo David Chiang . Cho Ho-jin Jeon . Detective Jang Ji-hyun Jun . Hye-young Dion Lam . Yun Joon-ha


I watched this movie, and hoped for something to get better the entire time. What is so great about a guy with no emotion? *yawn*

You never see Alex show emotion for anyone other than his son. Yeah, I know that this is why his son is the only one to cause him to lose his temper (if you can call it that), I get it.

Characters are undeveloped, relationships aren't given enough time to be understood. In one scene Sarah says they won't fall in love, and the next time we see her she's talking about how his death really shook her up because they were so close? Logic synapses abound in this film.

It's like someone watched Boogie Nights and wrote this part to mimic Little Bill. Even the scene where he 'loses his temper' is the same as when Little Bill shoots his wife, down to the facial expression (or lack thereof). Yes, William H. Macy is good at portraying a man without emotion - been there, done that - can you say Magnolia?

This movie didn't only lack emotion, it lacked substance, a good script, developed characters, and a plot. And it certainly lacks my recommendation. :)

~A~


Oh Sex Lives of the Potato Men, what foul demon created thee? This is a film that you watch, smirk a little during the runtime and then when you mention it to others having seen it, you just cannot help but smile as you talk. But it's not that Sex Lives of the Potato Men is actually a funny film and one that inspires you to smile when talking or thinking about it, it's just that the film is so bizarre; is so insulting and is no shameless in its attempt to get across a meek laugh to do with sex and sex lives in general that you just cannot help but have your mouth break out into a grin. Do bear in mind that what follows the smirk is a sinking of the head; a consequent shake of the head and a raise of the index finger and thumb to both eyebrows as you gently rub them in an attempt to reminisce about your time watching this trash.

But that's what the film is, it's trash; it's very brave and shameless trash but trash none-the-less. Whoever came up with this idea, put it to paper and then spread it around the industry trying to get it made must either be very brave or very desperate. It's strange to have a film that is most definitely 'about' something but one that does not have, under any sort of circumstance, a decisive narrative. This follows on from that idea that most of European cinema is artistic and its stories are ambiguous and open-ended and themes take precedence over most other things. In Sex Lives of the Potato Men, the same situation and technically the same joke are replayed over and over again and that is an ideation that consists of: 'sex is a very, very funny thing.' These ideas are perhaps more suited to an American film so it's no wonder that after a while watching this film, things start to feel a little out of sorts.

The film begins and ends in the same manner, creating a feeling of a circular journey; a circular journey that has gone absolutely nowhere and absolutely nothing has been achieved. Three blokes sit around a table talking and what-not. Their boss joins them and the conversation is limited to whatever crude and disgusting stories, situations or scenarios each can possibly think of. The odd thing here, being that whenever one man says something nasty, the other grimaces but has an equally filthy story to give in return creating a contradiction in what these men find to cross the line and what they do not. The men are Dave (Vegas) and Ferris (Crook), two people joined by Tolly (Coleman) whenever the film sees fit to throw in a third face to crack some more nasty sex jokes or break some peculiar stories. They are employed by Jeremy (Gattis), a man who has deeper issues and problems but issues of which the film is more concerned with exploiting for the sake of humour rather than study.

So what's the situation in Sex Lives of the Potato Men? The three to four men are in a crisis and for the duration of the film, we will adopt the role of the hapless fly on the wall as we witness what foul play these people get up to over the period of about a week. If the humour revolving around Dave and Ferris is disgusting and repulsive, then for Jeremy things are just spooky. It all begins rather innocently and it appears there is a female he likes and one who equally likes him in return but when the essence that Jeremy is merely a stalker creeps in, that's when the jaws drop. The character of Jeremy is used and put across in a way that makes unrequited love and stalking in general merely look 'funny'. Jeremy sits in his apartment listening to classical music and writing out letters of abuse to Ruth (Davis), echoing some sort of psychotic persona more associated with Hannibal Lecter writing his letter's to Clarice in 2001's Hannibal. But whatever sympathy we might have for him at this point is rendered absolutely false when, later on, it is revealed the true origin of their relationship. Suddenly, we as an audience feel cheated into feeling a mite sorry for him earlier on and for whatever reason he did do what he did in the first place just seems cowardly and distasteful. To say what it was would ruin whatever few surprises lurk within the film.

Quite sad how, in one of Jeremy's letters, he writes about something-or-other exclaiming it to have 'No artistic vision  just one big mess'. I hate it when words said by the characters echo the film they're in. Sex Lives of the Potato Men does not explore someone's psyche or particular interest in a fetish or why they feel the need to go around having as much sex as possible, it just uses them as a front to pile on ridiculously unfunny jokes and situations. Rather than take group sex and explore what drives a person to seek it down, it makes a daft joke out of it (tickets with numbers on!?); rather than get into the mindset of a fan of Sadomasochism, the film has someone hang from a basement ceiling and warn everyone of 'incoming salt and vinegar' as he climaxes. Ferris covers his face in disgust and the camera fades to the next scene without too much of a fuss. It's a relief the film got to no audiences abroad. This is one section of British culture, indeed of the British mentality that I pray will be confined to our shores and ignored accordingly.


Duchess and her three kittens are enjoying the high life with their devoted human mistress until the wicked butler Edgar, with his eyes on a big inheritance, decides to dope them and get them out of the picture. How can these fragile creatures cope in the unfamiliar countryside and the meaner streets of Paris? Only by meeting the irrepressible alley cat O'Malley, a rough diamond with romance in his heart. After they get a taste of the wide dangerous world, he guides them home, and Edgar gets his just desserts at the wrong end of a horse. As always, it's really the voices rather than the animation that are the heart of the Disney magic: Phil Harris is brilliant as O'Malley, Eva Gabor as Duchess is... well... Eva Gabor; but perhaps the most memorable turns are by Pat Buttram and George Lindsay, who turn the old hounds Napoleon and Lafayette into a couple of bumbling Southern-fried rednecks. Their scenes with Edgar, and the musical numbers with Scat Cat and his cool-dude band, are classic. Most striking about seeing The Aristocats now is how deeply Disney's style of animation has changed since this was at the cutting edge in 1970. Perhaps the nostalgic, dated feel are just a result of being plonked down in Belle Epoque Paris, but the illustrations are fussier (a pity) and the animation and overall pace much less frenetic (sometimes a relief) than in more recent efforts such as Aladdin.


Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!

Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.

Yech!!!


This was a crappy, miserably acted movie based on sublimated male fantasies. A shame that it was based in Texas, an otherwise excellent state. I would recommend this movie to no-one, and wish that it had never entered my consciousness as I am now so irritated that I wasted my brain cells even paying the slightest attention to it.


Ok let's start with saying that when a dutch movie is bad, it's REALLY BAD. Rarely something with a little bit of quality comes along(Lek, Karakter) here in holland but not often. Costa! is about 4 girls going to Spain to go on vacation, party, get drunk, get laid (u know the drill). It's also about the world of Clubbers or Proppers. Pro's who're trying to lure the crowd into their club.

I'm not sure how long it took to write the script, but i suspect somewhere between 15 minutes and 20 minutes because you're watching a bunch of random scenes for 90 minutes long. Nothing, and i mean nothing is believable in this movie. It's almost too riduculous for words what happens with the storyline. Suddenly the movie transforms into a sort of karate action thing. With a one-on-one fight with 'the bad guy in black' and cliche car chase scenes trough a watertank-car (can it be more cheesy). Also the words character-development and casting are unfamiliar to the makers.

After having seen 'Traffic' 3 days before this, i fell from sheer brilliance, from a piece of art to this. This is film-making at it's saddest. And don't start about low budget. Because even with a low budget you could write a better script. It almost seems that the film-makers were too busy partying themselves to make a decent movie.

Anyway the chicks in the water at the end made it up a little bit, but for the rest of it, don't waste your money on such garbage.


The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.

Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.


Michelle Pfeiffer stars as a mob widow who seeks a normal life but has her hands full with the new boss and an undercover agent. A lighthearted Demme film with some good laughs and Pfeiffer in a comical role that she has fun with..on a scale of one to ten..8


Child´s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it´s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.


Oz, is one of the most mind-blowing and addictive TV experiences ever.

Having caught pieces of this on SBS, I was at first skeptical, however, having finished now the 4th season, I sadly know that that this brilliant show is approaching its end, (6 seasons), and yet I still can't get enough of OZ.

Want something that will push your senses and your stomach to the limit...Oz fits the bill, hands down.

This isn't kid's stuff, folks, its violent, brutal, and not pretty. Why, its a experimental unit inside a maximum security prison.

Tom Fontana's Oz is brilliant in all the right departments, the actors, the writing, and directing.

HBO's Oz site is also highly recommended, for newcomers, for info about this series. This was the first one-hour show, produced by HBO, and it proves what a master-work it is and that others would follow.

Thank-You HBO


What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's 'The Private Life of SH'), but this version of 'The Sign of Four' feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of 'Murder, She Wrote' (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.

Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase 'Elementary, my dear Watson' (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.

Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!

3/10. Travesty.


This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10


I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to finally look at him as a serious actor.

It was also a great tribute to the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.


1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled '3 Days of the Condor'- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be.


The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the 'I'm gonna get us outta here' fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the 'star', I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since 'The Cowboys'. Stop it.


A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.

The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.

The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no 'coming of age' for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim.


The acting was terrible, the cheesy, fake, CHEAP green screen effects were ridiculous, and the creatures were absolutely retarded. The only good thing about this movie was the concept, and the laughs I got from watching such a bad movie- then I became pretty angry because I realized I wasted 4 bucks on renting it. Why would a movie like this ever be in theaters? I know this movie came out almost 5 years ago, but does anyone put any effort into making movies anymore? I am just writing random things to fill up space- because I need ten lines of text in order to publish this review. This next line should just about do it. Annnndddddd there!


This film is a flagrant rip-off of one of the best novels of all time, Silas Marner by George Eliot.

The details of the film shown on IMDb do give acknowledgement to the original authoress but I did not see this at the beginning of the film, only a credit at the end of it saying 'suggested by the book Silas Marner'. Suggested? It was nothing but a complete rip- off of all the essential elements of the story:

A wronged and sad old man, an artisan, poor and lonely, has all his money stolen. One night a child wanders up to his door as her mother lies dying in the snow outside. The man takes her in and brings her up until one day the local squire (or rich politician here) demands to adopt the child. It is he who has fathered the child during an illicit affair years before. The battle then ensues as to who should have legal custody of the child.

In this and every other aspect of the film, the story is exactly the same. In only one can I find a difference. Silas Marner had epilepsy - but perhaps that would have strained the acting abilities of Mr Martin too far. On top of that he has his hair dyed in some carrot juice concoction (presumably to make him look younger, but actually making him look more the clown that he is)! There is also the addition of meaningless jokes, that this offbeat comedian cannot resist bringing into the story which have no part in it and only detract from the profoundness of the story. Like when the child cries in the courthouse declaring she can only be happy with the man who has fathered her all these years. This is conveyed in the film by the girl applying nasal decongestant to the bridge of her nose to make her tearful!

I am surprised that legalities and integrity within the film industry permit such a film to be made. If I was a trustee of George Eliot's I would insist on reparation. If I was Steve Martin I would send the profits to that estate, or to the poor. At the very least it should be entitled Silas Marner - adapted by S Martin. Or better still removed from the archives!

If you are interested in this story - and I hope you are - dismiss this completely and watch Silas Marner. Or read the book! The BBC made an excellent adaptation of it in the 1980's.


Autobiography of founder of zoo in NYC starts out by being very cute and would be great family movie if it stayed there. however we get more and more involved with reality as gorilla grows up to be a wild thing not easily amenable to his 'mother's' wishes - this might scare younger children, esp. scenes where Buddy tries to injure Gertrude. rather quick resolution at the end. below average.


Wow! I have seen so many bad low budget films lately, but this one is great. The very realistic portrayal of police life in a city on the East German coast is a strong contrast to other crime movies or series. I loved the main actress and the absolute rejection of any prevalent cliché about the police. This film is realistic like a documentation and entertaining like a drama at the same time. A perfect tradeoff!


Another FRIDAY THE 13TH ripoff, even featuring some of its music! A group of young adults get together for a small high school reunion and start getting slaughtered a la Jason Voorhees. Could it be that nerd they used to torment in school?

Routine slash-fest is fun for fans of the genre, and contains the usual T&A quota for films if its ilk. The ending is a bit more imaginative than your standard slasher.

MPAA: Rated for violence/gore, language, sexuality, nudity, and some drug content.


What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.

Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote 'for Sam and Arthur' in its smoldering ashes.

The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, 'Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough.'


what a preposterous story ,murder blackmail,child sex allegations ,gays and the catholic church.....absolute tripe. How is it that most UK based TV dramas ,sit coms etc have to include the obligortory Gay,its really getting tiresome now. Everybody accepts that there are Gay people in society just has there are other minority groups,but we don't want it ramming down our throats(i'll pass on this one) in every single show. Apart from the above, the drama went from what could have been an interesting little story into a pantomime,the priest was a paedophile and there are gays running about every where,oh yes just to be totally PC one of the gay couple was black.i am surprised at c ecclestone for even contemplating this when he read the script.


This is my favourite Columbo. Martin Landau (excellent!) plays twins, one of whom may have committed a murder. This Columbo is unusual because the usual murder scene at the beginning doesn't give you any clue to which one did it! Peter Falk is on form as usual in this episode written by Steven Bochco (who also wrote 'Murder by the Book', my second favourite episode). The supporting cast are great especially Julie Newmar (very under-rated) and Jeanette Nolan as the house keeper that Columbo just keeps on upsetting. The surname of Martin Landau's characters in this is 'Paris'. That was the surname of Leonard Nimoy's character in Mission Impossible. Coincidence? Or a Steven Bochco joke?


i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom 'hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid'.

Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.

Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie!

It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good 'human interest' and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.


I don't understand the low 5.7 rating on this film. It's a delight for people who like a strong suspense plot and dark atmospherics. The tone is reminiscent of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, down to the locale (Savannah). The acting is strong, and I was amazed at the verisimilitude of Kenneth Branagh's southern accent. Famke Jansen is great, Robert Duval is effective in a small part, and Embeth Davitz is the BOMB. Great full nude scene of her,too.

The plot is fairly standard but effectively executed.


The main reason to check this one out is to watch Laura Gemser in all her glory.

That's reason enough for me.

She heads to Africa as guests of another rich guy that seems to be all over these films. Huge mansion near the jungle. Hunters staying around for parties when they aren't out hunting zebras. And said parties becoming drunken orgies.

All the high society types in the Emanuelle films seem to have out of control fetishes. And Emanuelle beds most of them.

Joe D'Amato did NOT direct this one. He just ripped it off and used the same cast(s). And did anyone notice the 'subliminal' sexual images at the gas station? And why did most of the men stay dressed during the sex scenes?

Coherence? Hardly any. BUT GODDESS GEMSER IS BEAUTIFUL.


Somebody mastered the difficult task of merging sports with romance. In reality, sports and romance go together like oil and water. So, to successfully put the two together on screen... well, that is about the equivalent of splitting the atom. I never thought it could be done. I will be the first to say that in general I don't like romantic comedies... but I do like sports and most movies about sports. This movie was a pretty good mix of the two. Being a baseball fan, I could really appreciate the comedic ordeal with Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Falon) being a rabid Boston Redsox fan. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows the curse of the Babe that plagued the Redsox for 86 years, and they know just how nuts about baseball a lot of Redsox fans are. The Farrely brothers did a great job capturing that and it made for good comedy. This was a very good movie that could appeal to many.


That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the 'This Network' airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.


Obviously, this is not the 'Piranha' directed by Joe Dante and produced by Roger Corman. It wasn't so obvious, when I bought the DVD for only $2.95, as the DVD cover art matched that of the Corman produced comedy/horror 'Piranha', even the DVD menu (no features of course) matched the cover. Half way through watching this odd movie, my girlfriend and I started thinking, where are the PIRANHAS? Once the movie reached the climax we realised that we must have been watching the wrong movie as we had seen the trailer, which had completely different footage, the blurb on the back of the DVD did not match the story we were watching and the credits (actors, producer, director) were also completely different. Instead, we got some jungle melodrama about a a girl and two guys who go searching for diamonds and end up confronting a vicious animal hunter. This tame, exploitation thriller is boring and pointless and is only mildly amusing for old-school, camp value. Strange that a DVD can be manufactured with the wrong film in tact, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make seeing as though they are both B-grade movies of the same name made in the 70's. Reading other posts made on this film, I noticed that I'm not the only one with the wrong movie on the DVD. How could this be an INTERNATIONAL error? Is there perhaps, some sort of DVD phenomena where unsuccessful films try to get recognition by being put on the wrong DVDs? WHAT IS GOING ON???


I reflect back to the days when I held my boyfriends hat to smell him into existence in my time alone when I was 16. The little moments of this film are so accurate and right on pace with what is going on in the minds and hearts of young girls during those coming of age teenage years. Now at my age I want to preach to them about their decisions and how life during those times are not as important as it all seems in those moments. That if they can be patient in their youth and wait to experience the hardships of life both external and internal that life would be so much sweeter. But then again young people today are faced with some variables that I never had to deal with a youth.

The three main characters well played by all three actors (Kerry Wahington - Lanisha, Anna Simpson - Joycelyn and Melissa Martinez- Maria) give us the very believable depiction of a piece of reality for young girls living in impoverished situations. They have impoverished family lives all being raised by single mothers with expectation of Lanisha whose father is present but not actively supporting her day to day. The have impoverished educational systems and lack direct contact with achieving role models. These situations powerfully affect them and is their reality but all this is of no great depressive concern to these young women in their day to day. They except their plight and focus on the same things young girls all over the world are concerned with. Finding true love in a male, having good friends that you can depend on, gaining some respect/love and responsibility from parents and enjoying life. This is were this film cross the race, age and gender gap imposed upon it by its characters and the setting in which it is stamped.

The Director and writer McKay explains on the DVD how each of scenes got into his head, by just observing young people of that age that lived in those types of neighborhoods. Plus you add three up and coming actresses who are not so far removed from that time in their own lives that you get a real good synergy of reality and acting at its best. The one thing I know about (African Americans and Hispanics) is that there is always a spiritual family member or neighbor that is in the foreground or near ground believing in a better day and better life and future in spite of the present situation and is role modeling that to some extent. This was never touched in the movie in order not to preach and I understand that but it also narrows the culture to having no hope in anything other than themselves.

The HOPE FACTOR: I now think about my future and where I have come from and say as Lanisha did ` Today is a good day.' Yes poverty still exists, racism, sexism, and any other ism that we can added. Yes some of each of these young girls actions perpetuate the isms and are self-destructive, everything around them is impoverished but NONE of those actions past or neither present nor their environment leaves them without hope for a bright future. I was left with saddened hope of each of the characters and a deeper desire to be a role model in the life of some young girl on the edge of making a destructive decision. I suppose that is the value of film it should not only entertain but cause each of us to think, reflect and then act in some positive way to make this world a better place.


If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.

The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.

The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of 'investment' deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.

This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.

I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.


The Flock is unjustly maligned as a lesser 'Se7en' ripoff. There's really no reason to compare the two, except maybe for the similar scenery in the final showdown.

Now that that's out of the way I'll go into why The Flock is very interesting in some respects. Mostly it's a drama piece rather than a full blown thriller about a very vigilant social worker who monitors sexual offenders. At the very beginning you can clearly see his work has got the better of him. Evident in two scenes where first he's interviewing an offender and slaps him around and second when a woman tries to pick him up and all he can think of are his standard questions from his questionnaire.

Gere is very good as Errol Babbage, the aforementioned social worker. His way of performing his job is not unlike that of a police officer, he carries a gun and is constantly checking newspapers and supplies law officials with information if some of his 'flock' may be responsible for a sexual crime. He's also a person who's lost all happiness of living and his only relief seems to come from exacting his own vigilante justice on his flock. Twice you see him smile, once when he's apologizing for treating his partner rudely and the other after he's beaten up a member of his flock.

As a suspense flick, The Flock isn't as successful. Somewhat confusing and with some irritating plot holes but it does have a number of striking set pieces.

Overall The Flock is a solid drama about a man performing a dehumanizing job and in the end he has to work hard to keep from being swallowed by the abyss he's surrounded himself in. The world we live in is a pretty sick place and the further one can distance himself from the worst the happier that person is. The Flock gets that point across nicely.


I was never quite sure where this thing was going. These people seem interested in what is going on on some mountain. They investigate, have narrow escapes, leave, come back, leave, put each other in danger, sleepwalk, get attacked by witches who have consistent wardrobes, etc., etc. The guy seems to like the girl, but leaves her unprotected numerous times. She gets taken off, he gets her back, leaves her again. You get the point. The whole thing seems to get around to some sort of sacrifice, I think, but I'm not sure, or turning people into witches, but I'm not sure. It's just dull and endless and not worth the time. There are some atmospheric scenes, but the print is so bad that there times when twenty seconds of blackness is not unusual. Is this caused by age or the overuse of night filters.


I hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.

The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.

This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.

How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.

Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.

1/10


I saw that movie few days ago. This movie is so great that it makes me feel that if you want something really bad that you have always dreamed about it - you can have it. This shows a big wish come true trought happiness and sadness, hopeless and failure. But if you are strong enough and your heart really belongs to something that you love you can make things different and be happy.


The club scenes in this film are extremely believable, Tim Curry is in his most venal mode, and there are enough drugs and violence here for two movies, maybe even three. What more do you require from an evening's entertainment? Pump up the volume.


I'm in awe! Wow, prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. Watch them as they pounce, crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar, fly through the sky, climb buildings, hide and spring from trees, throw about ninja stars, role out blue welcome mats, disappear in smoke bombs, make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. What a sight! Really I could go on about the many traditional actions, but I'll be here all day. Oh not to forget we even get the legendary Chuck Connors popping up now and again, and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. What class! What a badass! Anyhow the ultra-cheap 'Sakura Killers' is some stupid, but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b-grade debacle.

A genetic lab in America has a very important video that's stolen by a couple of ninjas. Two Americans are sent to Japan by the Colonel (Chuck Connors) to retrieve it.

The opening of the feature sets it up nicely. Get ready for the laughs! Afterwards it slows down, but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. This is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. It's not too shoddy either, (like the moronic script and daft performances). The final climatic showdown is very well done.

In the slow stretches it has the two Americans (Mike Kelly and George Nicholas) looking in to the case, sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. What made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. These were supposed to be professional killers? Director Dusty Nelson ('Effects (1989)') does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. He centres the on-screen activities around striking Taiwan locations. The score is a chintzy arrangement.


So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character 'likes the sound of his voice', turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, 'If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them.'

The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as 'revolutionary' is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice.

The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...

It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.

And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.


Rather than go on location and make a realistic film about drug addiction in the Windy City, contrarian director Otto Preminger decided to go the opposite way and make his movie appear as artificial as possible, thus flying in the face of the fashion set by men like Kazan, Huston and Zinnemann, who were making their pictures all over the world. Nelson Algren, on whose novel the movie is based, went on record as despising it. What, one wonders, was Preminger up to, and why did he do the movie this way?

The sets in the film are so minimal as to suggest a Mr. Magoo cartoon. Louie, the drug pusher, is attired as to resemble the sort of gangster the artists at Mad magazine used to draw. Arnold Stang, wonderful comedian that he was, seems out of place in a serious picture like this, and his very appearance, topped off by an exaggerated and over-sized baseball cap, elicits laughter. Robert Strauss, another actor best known for humorous roles, is likewise out of place, as his large, heavily jowled face and Runyonesque delivery of lines seems more appropriate to a Jerry Lewis movie. Against all this, stars Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker have to work overtime to just keep the viewer from snickering. Sinatra is jittery and manic throughout, suggesting a man ill at ease with himself, hence wholly appropriate for the role of a drug addict. Miss Novak, plant-like and sublimely deadpan, is sympathetic and seems a product of the artfully dingy slums she graces in the film. Parker is pure Hollywood and very hard-working as the crippled and crafty Zosch. She is never convincing, but then neither is the film.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone interested in a realistic depiction of the lives of drug addicts in America. The Caligari sets alone make it unbelievable. Preminger may have been aiming for a dream effect, as the cardboard backgrounds give the proceedings the surreal feeling of a nightmare operetta, perhaps harking back to Preminger's early days in Vienna.


I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like 'Switch'. However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): 'Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto' ('Man & Woman Up to a Point')


This is a wonderfully goofy example of a self produced, written and directed vanity project ...while I was working as a crew member John Carradine commented to me (before the burning at the stake sequence): 'This is the worst piece of sh*t I've ever worked on ...and I've worked on a lot of pieces of sh*t.' Also An interesting moment earlier when Jim Mitchum was having trouble with his lines and started cursing in the courtyard location of the Santuario (a religious shrine in Chimayó) - at which point one of the local 'vato loco' low-rider onlookers growled '...show some respect man', which apparently caused Jim to remember where he was, as he then made a very profound and heartfelt apology for his inappropriate behavior. In any case the crew did the job on deferment and were never fully paid - but came away with plenty of particularly bizarre stories - like the night we caught the producer/director's 10 year old son entertaining himself by constructing miniature Burmese tiger traps for us to break our legs in. Like they say: 'Ya gotta' love the Biz...'


This was the Modesty that we didn't know! It was hinted at and summarized in the comic strip for the syndicates to sell to newspapers! Lee and Janet Batchler were true Modesty Blaise fans who were given The Dream Job - tell a prequel story of Modesty that the fans never saw before. In their audio-commentary, they admitted that that they made changes in her origin to make the story run smoother. The 'purists' should also note that we really don't know if everything she told Miklos was true because she was 'stalling for time.' I didn't rent or borrow the DVD like other 'reviewers' did, I bought it! And I don't want a refund! I watched it three times and I didn't sleep through it! Great dialog and well-drawn characters that I cared about (even bad guy Miklos) just like in the novels and comic strips! I too can't wait for the next Modesty (and Willie) film,especially if this 'prequel' is a sign of what's to come!


I think Trash really sucks. I watched it a couple of weeks ago and I haven't seen that kind of c**p at the cinema since Female Trouble by John Waters and that was even worse. The dialogues, the acting; it really stank, it was so bad it made me want to leave the cinema and ask for my money back. But actually I am glad I saw it, because then I could tell my honest opinion on it. One should see this film, even though it stinks.


I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.