Spoilers ahead -- proceed at your own caution.

My main problem with this movie is that once Harry learns the identities of the three blackmailers -- with relative ease -- he continues to cave into their demands. And then the whole scene with his wife being kidnapped, he decides to wire his classic car up to explode (with the money in it), which makes us take a pretty tall leap of logic.

Okay, so he wanted to keep his affair with Cini out of the public eye due to his wife's involvement with the DA campaign. This I can see, but why not hire someone to slap these turds around a bit, or even kill them once he'd determined there was no actual blackmail evidence (e.g, Cini's body?) This was a pretty interesting movie for the first 2/3 of it. After that, it sort of falls apart.


This is my favorite classic. It was filmed a little west of Philadelphia, PA when I was 13, in 1957, and released the next year. Then in 1970, I found myself working the very same county as a rookie PA state trooper. I have always enjoyed checking out the different places where scenes were filmed. I knew the owner of the Downingtown Diner well, and he had a road sign out front which told all passing motorists that this was the 'home of the blob'. The theater scene was in Phoenixville, near Valley Forge Park and it is still showing films today!


The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).

The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.

I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).

All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.


I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.

Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...


Only saw this movie late last night. I remember the hype of it's release and to be honest had I viewed it back then I maybe wouldn't have been so generous. I hate hype, it can ruin a movie. I think the movie glossed over the characters and put too much emphasis on Woody. He was good too - although kept wondering if he was stoned the whole time. It never went too deep. Redford was dark but not too dark and his character let me down in the end. To me he should have been more confrontational with Demi - throwing her out perhaps or telling her that she was paid for. After all he would have investigated them before he made the proposal - that's not shown in the movie, but no one in his perceived position would have made an offer to just anyone. He was cruel to the point of breaking them up and the last straw was the house and yet Demi fell for him? The passages giving an insight to Demi and Woody's relationship were the best part of the movie. There was a keen deepness that outshone the shallowness of John Gages character. He really could have been a lot stronger and as other people have alluded I think the movies draw-card was Redford and they didn't want tarnish his 'image'. I say what the hell Robert was old in this movie! Woody and Demi's characters were naive in a sense, but I think that was very intentional to draw you to their plight and champion their decision. But the reality is, they were losing their dream home and where did they go? Las Vegas? to gamble what little they had left and then accept a proposal from an insanely rich billionaire. I found their naivety when Redford was seducing them a little too unrealistic. The movie could have been so much more and other actors would have made a difference, but having said that on late night TV - it was enjoyable and I if you don't think too much - also palatable


Down Periscope is not a 'Great Movie'. But then again very few flicks are. So if your looking for entertainment instead of great wisdom this is a 'great movie', without the capitals. No sharp sexism or graphic violence spoil this light comedy about a bunch of misfits who are assigned to a antique submarine. They are set to fail their tasks so that a general can get his extra star. They must take on the entire US-navy with it's nuclear submarines. But they are underdogs and this is a comedy so you can guess the outcome. But you root for those underdogs and this makes it a very entertaining movie. Watch and enjoy ******** (eight stars that is)


Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).

The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.

A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these 'exploitation films', usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.


I challenge you to watch this film and deny the above statement. That is, IF you can stop looking at her practically flawless face. She also does a bit of fighting and a bit of shooting, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. The film is extremely slow-moving and low-budgeted, though at least they tried to find an excuse for the spaceship being so underpopulated; nearly the entire crew is on 'suspended animation', and the ship moves on auto pilot! And the heroine doesn't rescue any of them, or bring anything useful back 'home'; it seems that tricking that evil lady into traveling through space was the only part of her mission that couldn't be more easily accomplished by the missiles that blow up the ship at the end. There are also some long but rather tame soft-core scenes, and a couple of 'Alien'-rip-off monsters that kill about 2 people. *1/2 out of 4.


Of those comments here before mine, I mostly agree with Edyarb's. The story and the script apparently had potential to be funny, but though managing at some points, in other places it failed. You could see them wanting to make a joke, but no one in the audience laughed. (Also agree with Edyarb's view on the end credits: leave it normal or make it cool, but not what they've done now.)

OK, that gives a more negative feeling than what I actually had watching the movie. I enjoyed it; it was pleasant entertainment for a night and definitely didn't feel like a waste of money to get the ticket. The best jokes are the ones that go a little bit outside of the expected and are fairly mature, like Luke Wilson's character Matt asking the super chick 'P*nis or bed?' when she told him she'd 'get him a new one' after a wild night in bed, ending up breaking the bed and leaving Matt sore.

I cannot, however, agree with bgs1614,who says that the film could earn an 'R' rating - there was absolutely nothing in the film to justify that. Some sexual acts yes, but nothing explicit, only humorous, and no nudity whatsoever. (Maybe he was at a prescreening that showed more...?) I'd like to compare this to two recent films I went to see with no expectations whatsoever: Superman Returns and Click. I didn't really expect anything from either one - I was a big fan of the original Superman films and the trailer for Click only showed it as a potentially chauvinistic (which I wouldn't oppose) film. Superman surprised me with actually having me feel good(goosebumps!) about seeing his first heroic deed, like seeing a long lost friend and feeling happy about it. But for the rest of the story I'd rather watch My Super Ex-girlfriend, at least it offers some surprises. Click again was a TOTAL surprise, much better and deeper than the trailer and about five minutes away from being a really excellent movie. The jokes also work much better than in Ex-girlfriend, both the naughty ones and the more advanced ones.

Anyway, the only reason I compared these three films is that they are the three last ones I've seen, within a very short period, and also because I went to all of these with basically no expectations at all. I'd rank them Click, Girlfriend, Superman.


Face it, folks-- 'DK3' is more challenging, innovative, and clever than its predecessor. Challenging-- its levels are ridiculously difficult for a considerable amount of time. One especially difficult level is called 'Lightning Lookout,' in which you may be struck by lightning at any given time. Innovative-- it opened a lot of doors. Too bad the SNES died out not long after this title. And clever-- the level names range from trademark plays-on-words ('Lake Orangatanga') to witty references that the game's targeted audience won't get for many years to come ('Bleak's House').

What irks me about most people's criticism of this game mainly comes down to two words: Kiddy Kong. He is a worthy 'little-buddy' successor to Diddy Kong, and certainly does not deserve to be referred to as 'that retarded monkey.' 'DK3' will remain a classic until the end of time.


This movie documents a transformative experience for a group of young men, and the experience of watching it is in itself transformative for the viewer. Few movies even aspire to this level of transcendence, and I can think of no other movie -- documentary or drama -- that achieves it. There is no other movie in which I have both laughed so much and cried so much. Yes, it is about DMD and accessible travel; on those issues alone, it is a worthwhile venture, but it is more. It is about friendship. It is about life itself, about living every day that you're alive. And it's a great, fun, adventurous narrative. This is why God created the cinema! See this movie!!!


Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw 'Rush Hour',but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better.


I saw this movie last night and thought it was decent. It has it's moments I guess you would say. Some of the scenes with the special ops forces were cool, and some of the location shots were very authentic. I won't be putting this movie in my DVD collection but it is fair enough to recommend for renting. I guess nothing set the movie at another level compared to others of the same genre. The action is good, the acting is decent, the women are extremely seductive and exotic in my opinion, and the story is pretty interesting. 7 out of ten


The Nutcracker has always been a somewhat problematic ballet. It bears little resemblance to ETA Hoffman's original story on which it is based.

In the ballet, the story is essentially over by the second-half when Clara (or Marie in this version) travels to the Kingdom of Sweets to watch a series of character dances.

There's an infinite variety of stage productions that re-interpret the story in myriad ways (not always successfully) to compensate for the ballet's weak libretto.

Balanchine's version doesn't really have any sense of drama or story at all (despite the fact that there is plenty of drama and mystery in Tchaikovsky's wonderful first-act music). The result is a completely forgettable first-half Christmas party where hardly anything happens and where even the dancing (the little that there is of it) isn't particularly memorable.

The pantomime over-acting, particularly of Drosselmeier, which might look passable on the stage, just looks silly filmed for the big screen.

Unfortunately, things aren't much better when we get to the Kingdom of Sweets (Act II in the stage version). Although there are a few choreographic highlights, most of the choreography is bland and uninspiring. This certainly isn't vintage Balanchine.

Balanchine is widely regarded as a master of abstract dance, but I have always felt he was less successful as a creator of narrative ballets. Watching this film version of his stage production of The Nutcracker has only re-affirmed this view.


This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled 'Starstruck'. I thought, 'What the hey', and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is 'Starfucker'.


I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking 'Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!' Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!


I watched the first few episodes a short while back and felt I couldn't take it anymore. The horrible looking fight scenes are the worst I've ever scene in my life. About one-third of each episode is dedicated to Flash Gordon and his 'mighty' fight moves. I know fight choreography from that era isn't exactly up to par with today's standards, but this is ridiculous. They don't even try to make it look realistic. Flash Gordon, who hardly resembles a fighter, uses his drunken slow moves and bare fist to knock out four or five guys with knives, guns, and other weapons. Give me a break! There's also a scene where he does some similar act while in the water. Basically every episode has scenes similar to that. As for the rest of the episode, there's not much else I remember. I basically viewed it out of curiosity on what science fiction looked like 70 years ago.


The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' and the studio tacked on part of 'Dollman' helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own 'Alien from L.A.' with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.

Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of 'Blind Date') and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of 'Weird Science') are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of 'Underworld'), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of 'Africa Express'), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of 'Doomsday') who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.

After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of 'Operation Hit Squad'), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of 'Necessary Roughness'), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day.

'Journey to the Center of the Earth' is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga.


I thought the film was good in parts.the start was exciting .the first 30 minutes of the film were good.the camera angles in the first 30 minutes were strange and i did not like it coz the were they not covering the actors entirely.

i think the last 25 minutes of the film were really not that great from which we expect a lot in case of such films.

the dialoques did not make sense and i don't think they were very witty.

i felt as if they were trying to copy films like phonebooth in terms of dialogues,but failed miserably.it seemed as if they many of the scenes between the actors were put for sake of it and did not make any sense to the story.

the entire film features only law and caine.

i don't think it was a waste of time,its an OK film,but not gr8


This is a rip-roaring British comedy movie and one that i could watch over and over again without growing tired. Peter Ustinov has never performed in a bad role and this is no exception, particularly with his dry wit but very clever master plan. Karl Malden has always been an admirer of mine since he starred in 'Streets of San Francisco'. I believe that Maggie Smith is the real star of this film though, appearing to be so inept at everything she tries to do but in truth is so switched on, particularly at the end when she informs everyone that she has invested so much money that she has discovered whilst laundering his clothes. One thing does concern me though, could someone please tell me why i cannot purchase this on either DVD or VHS format in the UK, could someone please assist?


I remember this movie. Quite intense for an 11 year old. Good editing, I felt terrible for the St. Bernard. I'd watch it again if it were rebroadcast, but the signal is passing Pluto as I write this. Robert Culp. A highlight of his career. I am just glad I didn't live in THAT neighborhood. Oh those 70's. What a decade. If they remade it I bet it would be very violent and bloody. So what are they waiting for? An excellent movie for pre-pubescent suburban boys. It was very intense. I think it was filmed in Los Angeles. Certainly not made in Lodi NJ. The shot with the St Bernard was the best and obviously the most haunting image from the film...and then they left the carcass on the stoop. Rotten kids.


I'm going to keep this review short and sweet....

I saw the trailer for this and thought I'd give it a whirl 5 minutes in and my initial thoughts were 'what the hell is this?' But after 10 minutes I was hooked and after 20 I was picking my jaw up from off the floor. This film is a great example of how different a movie can be, and furthermore it's french. This film is high art eye candy wrapped up in a tidy futuristic film noir package, the motion capture is very clever and the black and white animation style which has no grey although at first didn't do it for me totally captivated me and by the end of the film and I found myself wishing every film was made like this. I think my opinion was helped by the great dubbing it would have been very easy to ruin it had they not landed so many respected actors as many voice actors give no feeling to the characters (Just watch any Hong Kong legends film in English to see a perfect example)I gave it 9 although I gave it an extra 2 because of how fresh and new the whole thing feels....


I had enjoyed the Masters of Horror Series until I came upon this infantile dung heap.

This anti-Bush propaganda piece masquerading as a horror film comes off like an episode of the original Batman done by Michael Moore. Political satire should be clever, this however, pulls a ten on the simpleton scale with all the style and credibility of an L. Ron Hubbard film.

In its campy, inane way, it accuses the Republicans of stealing elections, going to war for absolutely no reason and treating servicemen and women as mere cannon fodder. It even takes a swipe at the Second Amendment and religion. All that was missing was Caesar Romero as the President cackling in glee about how he orchestrated 9/11.

I guess the ending was supposed to be the 'we support our troops' moment, but I think they would be more offended than pleased with the entire endeavor.

I'm sure the Hollywood elites are sitting in their Malbu mansions patting each other on the backs for this 'pithy' work while the misinformed anti-war drones hail it as genius.

Time to get fitted with new tinfoil hats kids.


We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.

As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).

Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.

Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: 'SHUT UP!'


Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.

This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.

See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did.


I first saw this movie in the theater. I was 10. I just watched it a second time and I must say it was amazing. The music, the dancing, the acting. It is a great story and told extremely well. I fell absolutely in love with Treat Williams when I was a kid after seeing him in this movie. One of my favorite parts was when his mom kept yelling at him to give her his pants, and then finally said 'how much do you need'? (money). That was classic. ; ).

Moms are the best. If you haven't seen this movie since it came out I say see it again. It's timeless. It will do what all great movies do; make you laugh, cry, and think.


Pandora's Clock is among the best thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the best thrillers you will ever see. A highly faithful adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made even more so here.

Despite being made for TV, this is first rate entertainment. The cast is great and slips into characters from the novel so well that you would think they were reading the novel. Richard Dean Anderson steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is great her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she can be a fine dramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is great as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works incredibly well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are top notch and fit their novel counterparts tot he letter.

There are changes to the story of course (including and a slight change in the ending) but those changes are for the better when compared with the novel. The plot is realistic and very see to believe in the way its presented making this the best airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are high and though the special effects might look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they work fine. Sets are great, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent a lot of time to make this work.

It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just do both and you won't regret losing four hours to this film and however long it takes to read the novel. This will leave you breathless.


Watched this film with an audience of....5 in total! Had a choice between Lakshya and Asambhav...(realized then I should have gone for Lakshya). A typical plot...India v Pakistan..but just isn't cricket as you have Kashmir in the middle. An Indian super hero goes on a mission to save the President of India from some Pakistani rebels who are involved in a mass drug smuggling racket. I left the film half way as it was simply boring and the plot was confusing and all over the place. The songs were also awful, the film tries to hide the flaws with its special effects but unfortunately they are outdated too.

Overall...avoid it if you can, has to be the worst film I've seen this year.


> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, 'mail in') in their paycheck films. This was > one. >


Bardem is great. Actresses are great. But Amenabar did not have to do it like this. It is OK that he defends his position on the euthanasia, an extremely delicate issue. But doing it like this makes him lose his point: the movie is a false, offensive to the intelligence, full of tricks and even sometimes extremely boring. Some scenes are advertising material, more than a movie. Women are incredibly attracted to this mind-sick man who wants to make someone to kill him, not understanding the implications of that. He seems not to care about no one and thank them for their caring, love and attention. I think that Amenabar might have make people think about this issue in a different way but the way he chose to do it I believe is not correct. He could have make his point more powerful exposing the other side of the coin without mocking it.


I have bought the complete season of Surface. watched it in 3 days! I was so captured by the the plot, theories and basically everything about this show. The actor who plays Miles is great. Mile's sister, mother and father acted like real life family would. You could connect on so many levels it's fascinating.

I find animals are so wonderful, you can almost connect with them as a parent is to a child. It would be something if a creature of this sort of nature truly exists.

Am sadden, that Surface is not having a second season or at least four more shows. I have so many questions that need to be answered and hopefully maybe they will create more or maybe in a book.

Love the show very much. For those who haven't watched Surface, if you like sci-fi you need to watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!


James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes.


Why spend a moment slogging through this awkward and self-conscious movie? Every now and then, after an hour of tedious plot and amateur acting, we start getting bits and pieces of the big band swing that made Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, separately and together, the great musicians they were. Occasionally -- in a jam session with Art Tatum, with Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra doing 'Marie' and, a standout, Jimmy Dorsey and his orchestra fronting Bob Eberle and Helen O'Connell singing 'Green Eyes' -- we get a complete song.

Unfortunately, the movie is in the public domain and the DVD transfer is just as bad as the acting. My copy has only four chapter stops. That means you can get arthritis in your fast- forward finger trying to speed through to where the good stuff is. The swamp you're moving through is Hollywood's version of the life and battles of the two Dorseys. Tommy, superb on trombone, and Jimmy, superb on saxophone, usually couldn't stand each other. In 1935 they finally split, with Tommy starting his own orchestra. Each had greater success alone than they had achieved together. They reconciled when their father died in the Forties, which is where the movie ends. They later managed to tolerate each other in the orchestra led by Tommy as the big band era faded out in the Fifties. Tommy died in 1956 at age 51, vomiting in his sleep after booze, pills and a big meal. Jimmy died of cancer at 53 in 1957. Jimmy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, a reasonably easy-going guy. Tommy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, often an overbearing jerk. But good music makes up for a lot of faults, and the Big Band sounds the two created helped define the swing era.

They play themselves in the movie, and we see them develop from tussling tykes (with child actors) to grown men battling and yammering at each other. The movie is lumbered with not just their two parents, played by those Hollywood Irish clichés, Sara Allgood and Arthur Shields, who just want their boys to get along with each other, but also with a major sub- story involving a romance between Janet Blair, as a childhood friend of the Dorseys who becomes a vocalist with them and serves as a nearly full-time mediator and enabler, and William Lundigan, as a piano player. Blair is not bad at all. However, if you want to see why she never became the star she quite probably should have become, just look at the films, like this one, that her studio put her in. No wonder she left Hollywood. Lundigan simply takes up space.

How bad is this movie, other than when we can actually hear the Dorseys play? Well, here's a song written especially for the movie and given to Blair to warble. It's called 'To Me.'

To me...you're the rose of a rosary...the rise of a rising sea...the glow of a star...

The rose of a rosary? The movie doesn't get any better than this, and it can't get worse. Still, if you like the Dorseys and if the price is right...well, in hindsight I'd still not buy it. The highlight, for me, is Eberle and O'Connell singing 'Green Eyes.' You can watch them on You Tube for free. You'll also find there quite a bit of each of the Dorseys. I wish I'd known.


A very watchable film, and one which was eagerly awaited having seen the trailer a number of times.

The whole thing looks superb, from the ludicrous efforts of the effete upper class to distance themselves from the mediocrity, to the lower class scum just trying to keep their heads above the filth, the film captures the spirit of the 18th century brilliantly.

Jonny Lee Miller plays Maclean extremely well, though the part does not exactly stretch him, and Robert Carlyle seems a little wasted on Plunkett, Miller's highwayman colleague.

The real star of the show was undoubtedly Ken Stott, who plays Mr Chance (a kind of 1740's chief of police) with an evil glee that set him out from the rest of the cast.

A great film, and anyone that enjoys the colour and style of Peter Greenaway's films will love the look of this, although the thinness of the plot becomes apparent before the 2 hours are up.

Well worth a viewing.


This film was not about stereotypes, nor dance moves, nor pickup lines, really. This film was about the vulnerability of peoples' hearts. It was hard to believe that Kevin James could play in a convincing role, that Will Smith could satisfy without action, and that such a hackneyed genre of film could succeed in such a way. I don't intend to sound overly endeared with this film - it wasn't 'groundbreaking' in any sort of way - but it was a film worth seeing. Was it believable? No. New York couldn't be so simple and there has been no human being in the history of mankind that has the 'hutzpah' of Hitch. Sure, there are bar-studs, but not ones that can get any chick, at any time - excluding those raking in seven figures, of course. The thing that worked best for this film was its true focus on the dramatic side of things, not just on the comedy. It was a funny two hours, no doubt. But it was also two hours that made you sit in your seat, become immersed in the characters, and smile.


(SPOILERS IN THIS)

'Rosenstraße' is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.

The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?

The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...

Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a 'Ritterkreuz' which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.

Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the 'true story' claim at the beginning. Like 'Sass' it is vaguely BASED on a true event.

It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor


Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.


This movie was really awful. It was not in the least bit frightening, or even startling. I went to see it with a bunch of friends and by the end of the night we were saying 'The Ruins ruined my night.'

I would not recommend seeing this movie in theaters, renting it or even watching the movie on television by accident.It is an absolute waste of an hour and a half.

The plot was nearly non-existent, the characters were horribly underdeveloped, and they gave no back story whatsoever for anything that was happening, and then left it completely open at the end as if preparing for a sequel.


Time for a rant, eh: I thought Spirit was a great movie to watch. However, there were a few things that stop me from rating it higher than a 6 or 7 (I'm being a little bit generous with the 7).

Point #1: Matt Damon aggravates me. I was thinking, 'what a dicky voice they got for the main character,' when I first heard him narrate - and then I realized it is Matt Damon. The man bugs me so very bad - his performance in 'The Departed' was terrible and ruined the movie for me (before the movie got a chance to ruin itself, but that's another story for some other time), as it almost did 'Spirit'. I was able to get past this fact because of how little narration there actually was... thankfully.

Point #2: Brian Adams sucks... The whole score was terrible... The songs were unoriginal, generic, and poorly executed; not once did I find the music to fit; and the lyrics were terrible. Every time one of the lame songs came on, I was turned off. I almost thought I'd start hearing some patriotic propaganda slipped into the super-American freedom style lyrics (I couldn't help but be reminded of those terrible patriotic songs that played on the radio constantly after 9/11). In light of the native American aspects of the film, they should have gone with fitting music using right instruments, not petty radio-hit, teen-bop, 14-year-old-girl crap. I thought I was back in junior high school. I can't believe no better could have been done--I refuse to. Had it not have been for this, I'd rank the film up more with Disney, which knows a thing or two about originality (ok, don't bother saying what I know some of you are probably thinking ;). Too bad, it's a shame they couldn't have hired better musicians.

I liked the art and animation, except for some things here and there... like sometimes the angles appear too sharp on the face and the lines too thick or dark on the body (thick/dark lines mainly near the end). There were often times when I thought they _tried too hard_ on the emotion and facial expressions and failed at drawing any real emotion. But there were also times when the emotion ran thick. Anyhow, many scenes were lazy and the layers were apparent.

OK, I'm falling asleep here so I'll sum it up before I start making less sense...

Nice try on an epic film... it turned out mediocre though. Matt Damon, you suck!


Well, if you are open-minded enough to have liked Barber Shop, then you will like this Canadian film.

If your mind is as closed-minded as Fort Knox, then you will give it the current score that it has : 2.5.

This is a film for anybody prepared to watch films from outside of their own racial grounds. It is engaging, it is true to life, on two or three occasions you lose the connections between the scenes, but many times, especially towards the end, you find yourself having a tear or two in your eyes and this simply because it so often mirrors what life can be like.

I like it and recommend it to anyone open minded beyond the traditional American film.


This film had no huge stars in it, but did have a very good cast filled with excellent supporting actors AND Gene Tierney before she became a big star. With George Sanders, Reginald Gardner, Harry Carey, Bruce Cabot, Jospeh Calleia and Cederic Hardwicke, you'd expect more from the film than it actually delivered. Most of this, I suspect, is because of a second-rate script, as director Henry Hathaway was a competent and well-established man at the helm.

The film is set in East Africa during WWII--just before the Americans entered the war. The Brits are trying to control their African colonies while subversive Nazi elements are trying to stir up trouble among the locals. One of the white men in the film is a double-dealer--working for the destruction of the British Empire! But, lovely Tierney, playing a sultan's daughter(!), is out to help save the day for good ol' Britain.

American film makers have long sided with the Empire and the 1930s and 40s saw a plethora of pro-empire films. Nowadays, with changed sensibilities, the notion of seeing the happy black natives dying for Queen and country seems ridiculous--and it would be hard to root for either side! Still, in its day, this propaganda piece was effective in drumming up support for the British--though when seen today, the film suffers from a long-winded script and silly casting. The one bright moment in the film is the final showdown between George Sanders and the enemy agent. Too bad after such a potent scene the film just seemed to talk and talk--losing some of its punch.


This is one of the worst films I've seen in years!! You could randomly pluck 5 people off the streets and they could act better than anyone in this film. Absolute waste of time watching it. I only gave it a 2 as I like gory films but this is just plain rubbish. The acting (and I use that term VERY loosely) is abysmal, someone please tell me that the 5 main actors in this were making their first ever film?? Don't waste your time watching this. Hostel was a better film by some way. I cannot believe that someone has spent money making this, I hope for the producers sake it only cost $50,000 to make - it looks like a school project, made by kids who haven't got a clue. Did this even make it to the cinema??


Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie.


No, it's not Citizen Kane. But would you expect it to be with a name like 'Meatballs'? It's the best damn summer camp movie of all the summer camp movies. Does anyone quote 'Little Darlings' line by line? Or 'Whitewater Summer'?

This is just one of those movies that got into my brain when I was in junior high, and stayed with me all these years. Every time I feel geeky, I mumble 'Spaz. Spaz. Spaz. Spaz.' Or when we're hiking in the brush in the forest, I tell my husband, 'I'm Wudy da Wabbit.' (He doesn't get it). 'It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.' I mean, this stuff is classic!

Disappointed with the DVD, though. Wish there were special features, maybe a commentary or a making-of. But the movie itself is a perfect snapshot of life as an adolescent in the late '70s. Maybe not MY life... You can't help but want to run around out in the woods in shorty shorts and knee-high socks and feathered hair every time you see this movie.


an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of 'lumumba film censor' or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even 'ali' when mohammed ali visits kinshasa.


I wasn't surprised to read a comment by the director to the effect that she made this film as an antidote to all those 'making of' DVD featurettes, as that certainly struck me. I do confess that I have a penchant for 'meta,' but I found this film to be very accessible and entertaining, and not even in a labored, self-consciously clever way, which is certainly a bit of what you expect in a film about film-making. It is very 'French' in that there are a great deal of outlandish, yet occasionally compelling theories about how film-making (and even sexuality) 'works,' but since the director doesn't quite play herself (using an avatar instead), we're left with a lot of choices (since I'm pretty sure she's constantly contradicting herself). Apparently Catherine Breillat specializes in hard-to-watch films, but I'd definitely say this one doesn't qualify. I really enjoyed the dialog, the balance between the cinematic and the natural, the relationships between the director character and her assistant and actor, and so on. Highly recommended.


Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story 'Come Be My Love', and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from ****


Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly underrated.

Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.

The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)

Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.

Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis.


This movie is VERY LONG, but totally worth splitting up over several nights. It has an all-star cast, and if you are a Patrick Swayze fan, this will get your heart to throbbing! :-) My mother is a Civil War buff, and a history teacher, and every summer we would watch this movie (we had recorded it off TV), over several, several nights until we got through the whole thing. We had every line in the movie memorized, lol. Pop some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the action and romance. It's a great movie for those that like action, war, blood & guts, but also for those with a soft, romantic side. The clothes the women wore were GORGEOUS! Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong era, lol.


'Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.

In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.

Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.

Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.

The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for.


Yeah sure it's cheesy, it's not Zombie, but it's not that bad either. It has Beatrice Ring which is a huge bonus, and it's entertaining. I had the good fortune to meet Fulci later in his career and he remained philosophical about the experience, as he was never completely satisfied with it. It is well worth a search out, especially for genre and Fulci fans. It is a film that is far too often dismissed out of hand.


Lush cinematography, beautifully written and edited, John Boorman's Beyond Rangoon is a must-see for anyone interested in world politics and the arc of personal transformation. It interweaves a personal and political tale that continues to haunt me, popping up in my mind's eye with frequency. The story line is gripping, and the inner and outer journeys are paralleled carefully and delicately both cinematically, and in the story line. I've watched this film at least six times, and it really holds up to scrutiny. It is particularly relevant today, given world events. Check it out, you won't regret it! BTW, NetFlix does not yet carry it, but you can request that they do.


Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film.

It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.

The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.

By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.

Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question.


I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating 'wives'' infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead.


I realise that the US Army was demoralised by 1971, but this film was unbelievable. It was supposed to be a training camp not the SS punishment battalion in a Sven Hassell novel. The writer must be a real Army hater. The psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell, and the useless Black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. These men were going overseas, the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from, and an investigation would have ensued. The scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. Farrell, the alleged barrack room lawyer, would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture POWs in contravention to the Geneva Convention ), actual assault on an enlisted man, sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. Intead he just walks away. After this, discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. I don't know how it ended, I went to bed.


A dangerous psychopathic killer Jacob Goodnight is holed up in the abandoned and rotting Blackwell Hotel,alone with his nightmares until eight teenage delinquents show up for community service duty along with the cop who wounded Jacob four years ago.When one of their own is kidnapped by the killer and her fate uncertain,the remaining petty criminals must fight for their lives...'See No Evil' was directed by the porno filmmaker Gregory Dark and it stars WWE superstar Kane as remorseless psychopath.The supporting cast is terrible and there are no surprises to be found here,but there is enough extreme violence and gore for slasher fans to enjoy.Overall,I liked this film and you should too,if you are into mindless slasher flicks.Sure,it's cliché,but who cares.7 out of 10.


I really don't know why I agreed to watch this movie, but like a complete fool I did and for that I deserve to be shot! I had seen the original Killjoy, well I say I have seen it.... I started watching it but found it that bad that I ended up watching it in 4x speed to get it over with and get rid of the annoying dialogue, but I said I would watch it and I did even if it was in 4x speed.

To cut a long story short Killjoy 2 kicks off where Killjoy left off. By this i don't mean the plot, I mean the complete and total bag of dirt known as acting and cheapness. I have nothing against low budget movies, in fact I kinda enjoy them, they are something different from Mega budget blockbusters, but this film is just terrible! The acting is diabolical and the script... well i think you could of given Stevie Wonder a pen and paper, and he would of produced something much better! This movie is just annoying, not to mention the annoying laugh the clown has which is so obviously dubbed! I didn't make it through this movie anyway, about three quarters of the way through it was time to turn it off and throw it through the window. It may of been a rip off to buy as a DVD but as a frisbee it was a mega bargain!

Please for the love of mankind itself DO NOT watch this muck, it is possibly the worst thing I have ever seen and considering some of the muck I've seen thats saying a lot!

My rating on this movie would be.... Nailgun to the head/10


This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.

Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself!

What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy.


This movie is a lot better than the asylums version mainly its war of the worlds. The tripods look pretty cool but their walking and deaths could have been better. The action scenes were really cool. Walking... walking...walking...walking!!! oh my god stop walking please or i'm going to kill myself. The thunder child scene was my favorite sequence mainly because a ship rammed bunch of tripods. Good movie I recommend it for people ho have read the book. The music is awesome and the directors cut looks pretty cool.

pros. Good soundtrack 99% to the book Cool violence Tripods and handling machines are cool to look at

cons. some bad acting cheesy looking London


I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8/10.


Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.

I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.

There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like 'stop action' card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.

There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.

In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.

A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.

Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.

I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.


this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...

this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.

there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.

i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.

banned... what a joke...


Wow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely for you!


Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.

History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.

But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.

Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.

England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.

After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.

The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.

Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.

During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup.


Men of Honor stars Cuba Gooding Jr., as real life Navy Diver Carl Brashear who defied a man's Navy to become the first African American Navy Diver. Sometimes by his side and sometimes his adversary there was one man who Carl Brashear really admired. His name was Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DeNiro). Sunday in a lot of ways pushed, aggravated and helped Carl become the man he wanted to be.

I loved Cuba in this film. His portrayal here is as liberating and as powerful as Denzel Washington was in The Hurricane. Through every scene we can see his passion, motivation and stubbornness to achieve his dream. We can see the struggle within in him as he embarks to make his father proud. I also loved how the director created and brought forth a lot of tension in some of the key diving scenes. Brashear's encounter with a submarine during a salvage mission is heart-stopping and brilliant.

The only fault I could see would have to lie in the supporting cast. Cuba and DeNiro's characters are very intricate and exciting to watch. Which does make you a little sad when they have to butt heads with such two-dimensional supporting characters. The evil Lt. Cmdr. Hanks, Sunday's wife (Charlize Theron), the eccentric diving school colonel (Hal Holbrook) and Cuba's love interest are the characters I found to not have very much depth. What could have made these characters more substantial and more effective was a little more time to develop them. Why was that colonel always in his tower? How come Sunday's wife was so bitter and always drunk?

Another curious question has to be this. What happened to Carl Brashear's wedding? I mean if this film is chronicling this man's life wouldn't his wedding be an important event? Maybe it's just me. Men of Honor, however, is a perfect example of the triumph and faith that the human spirit envelops. This film will inspire and make you feel for this man's struggle. Which I do believe was the reason this powerful story was told. My hat goes off to you Carl Brashear. I really admire your strength.


This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about.

I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.

I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.

This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)

Also watch for the cameos from known character actors.


Like a lot of people, I loved the original; 'American Graffiti' was one of the great movies of the 70s. The sequel, 'More American Graffiti' is a horrible, depressing mess of a movie. It wasn't funny, the wide-eyed, likable characters had become cynical and jaded, and the stories were contrived (such as 'Laurie's' character having another brother because Richard Dreyfuss didn't do the sequel and 'Terry the Toad' and 'Pharaoh Joe' somehow managing to serve together in Vietnam). They even have a police officer by the name of 'Falfa' (Harrison Ford's character in the original) who makes a 'cameo'. He doesn't even look like Harrison Ford, who was way too big a star by 1979 to even bother with this garbage.

The operative word here is 'funny'. This movie isn't even amusing. Debbie (Candy Clark) is a stripper mixed in with a bunch of dope spoking hippies and trying to bail her dealer boyfriend out of jail; Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), the lovebirds in the original, have two kids and have become an annoying, bickering couple; Adorable little tomboy Carol (MacKenzie Phillips) has become 'Rainbow', yet another hippie child. John Milner (Paul LeMat) is a loser race car driver whose fortune was foretold at the end of the original. Even Wolfman Jack, whose voice was such an integral part of the original, and gave it such a great flow, only is heard sporadically.

Perhaps it was different writers, a different director and the complete lack of a cohesive story line that makes this movie such a dismal failure.

The episodic charm and authentic nostalgia of the original is nowhere to be found in the sequel. It was a movie that didn't need to be made and its best just to remember what a great movie 'American Graffiti' was and avoid the movie with 'More' in the title.


Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar 'nunsploitation' which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.

Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.

With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation.


Welcome to Oakland, where the dead come out to play and even the boys in DA hood can't stop them. This low-budget, direct-to-video production seems timed to coincide with the release of Land of the Dead, the latest installment of George A. Romero's famed zombie series. The ghetto setting and hip-hop soundtrack may provide additional appeal for inner- city gore hounds. Ricky (Carl Washington) works at a medical research facility while raising his kid brother, Jermaine (Brandon Daniels). But the teenager, bored by macaroni-and-cheese dinners in their tract house, would rather spend his time hanging with street friends Marco and Kev. Apparently there is not a lot for African-American high-school dropouts to do on this side of the bay except deal drugs and scuffle with the homeys, including rival Latino gang bangers. Ricky plans to sell their late parents' house and move inland to the Castro Valley, a more middle-class and presumably safer environment. Unfortunately, before this can happen, a drive-by shooting leaves Jermaine dead on the porch. Grief-stricken Ricky tries a last desperate ploy. He tells Scotty, his lab assistant, to steal some of the experimental cell regeneration formula they have been testing on rats. When a double dose fails to revive Jermaine, there is no choice except to call 911. But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue. The boy is reanimated as a sputtering, growling zombie, chews the ambulance drivers and staggers off into the night, bent on revenge and hungry for fresh meat. The feeding frenzy infects more victims, and before the night is over the East Bay is a battleground between the living and the blood-spattered undead. The horror genre has seen more than its share of cheap movie makers, from Ed Wood to Herschel Gordon Lewis to Charles Band. But low budgets do not necessarily mean bad films. Consider Val Lewton's programmers (Cat People, The Leopard Man, Isle of the Dead), Roger Corman's Poe quickies, Romero's Night of the Living Dead and John Carpenter's Halloween. The difference between memorable and awful has more to do with talent and ambition than money. Hood Of The Living Dead is more fun than several hundred million dollars' worth of recent high-priced horrors. Cheapness has its charms. In truly cheap films actors wear their own clothes amid real settings. Here the tract houses have freshly painted walls in neutral matte tones, lending a bleakness as oppressive as Douglas Sirk's bourgeois melodramas of the '50s. Lines seem more improvised than scripted. 'So what the hell are we gonna do now?' 'Just keep your eyes open for any F N' thing that looks out of the ordinary.' Ricky and Scotty call their boss, who calls an ex-military man named Romero. 'I have a huge bitch of a problem that we have to take care of fast.' 'Not a problem,' says the merc, closing his phone and grabbing his guns. Everybody has guns, and even when fighting zombies they're on their cell phones, as who isn't nowadays? Information is exchanged with naturalistic understatement. 'What happened?' 'We got into it with some crazy motherfockers.' 'Deja F N' vu. It's that park zombie again. ...' Ricky even has to blow his twitching girlfriend away, saying only, 'She's gotten out of hand.' Unlike most zombie movies, this one provides a motive for mayhem. Jermaine takes revenge on the gang bangers who shot him, who in turn continue the rumble. This is urban film-making that implies its own social commentary, a near-guerrilla production suggesting a future for low-budget horror that reflects real life instead of supernatural clichés. The brothers Quiroz, who have trademarked their name as if in anticipation of a new movement, may inspire others to tell stories arising from personal experience rather than imitating tired Hollywood product. Considering their limited resources, Jose and Eduardo Quiroz have made a cheap but technically acceptable feature about people they know. Photographer Rocky Robinson gets the job done, music by Eduardo Quiroz is no simpler than Carpenter's haunting Halloween theme, and hip-hop songs by The Darkroom Familia and others add atmosphere. The result is promising if not exactly exhilarating. They are learning their craft and, unlike Lewis and Wood, who never got any better, their next may be one to watch.


I don't understand the many good reviews, here. I found the photography and scenery beautiful, and the two lead actors appealing, but there's little else here to recommend this movie. Most annoying are the fake Southern accents and badly written dialog. These do not sound like real people to me. Although it's refreshing to show men exploring various forms of sexuality without the usual labeling and stereotypical character traits, most of the story is without motivation or logic. The only thing that makes very much sense is the responsibility Griffith feels toward his mentally ill Aunt, grossly over-acted by Karen Black. Lee is an interesting character who would have been more compelling had the dialog he was made to speak been more natural and his motivations more clear. Yes, I understand that he's a drifter, but his actions as the movie draws to a rushed conclusion make no sense at all. This movie is worth a look, chiefly because it has a nice atmosphere about it, but it's slow moving and deeply flawed. A serious rewrite and better editing might have saved it, as the premise and story outline are promising.


Utterly tactical, strange (watch for the kinky moment of a drop-dead gorgeous blonde acting as pull-string doll for some rich folks), pointless but undoubtedly compelling late-night feature. This unhinged French production is a stew of perplexedly unfocused ideas and random plot illustrations centred on its very charismatic stars (if somewhat anti-heroes) Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. Really they don't get to do all that much, especially during the confined, lengthy mid-section where they hide themselves in a building during the Christmas break to crack a safe with 10,000 possible combinations. Oh fun! But this is when the odd, if intriguing relationship is formed between Delon and Bronson's characters. After a manipulative battle of wills (and childishly sly games against each other), the two come to an understanding that sees them honour each other's involvement and have a mutual respect. This would go on to play a further part in the twisty second half of the story with that undetectable curve-ball. Still their encounters early on suggest there's more, but what we get is vague and this is magnified by that 'What just happen there?' ending that might just make you jump. YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Glad to get that out of the system.

The pacing is terribly slow, but placidly measured for it and this seems purposely done to exhaust with its edgy, nervous underlining tension. Watch as the same process is repeated over and over again, and you know something is not quite right and the scheming eventually comes into play. Now everything that does happen feels too spontaneous, but the climax payoff is haunting. The taut, complex script is probably a little too crafty for its own good, but there are some neat novelties (Coins, glass and liquids try not spilling) and visual symbolisms. Jean Herman's direction is efficiently sophisticated and low-key, but get a tad artificial and infuse an unwelcoming icy atmosphere. The sound FX features more as a potent note, than that of Francois DeRoubaix's funky score that's mainly kept under wrapped after its sizzling opening. Top drawers Delon (who's quite steely) and Bronson (a jovial turn) are solid, and work off each tremendously. Bernard Fresson chalks up the attitude as the Inspector who knows there's more going on than what is being led on. An attractive female cast features able support by Brigitte Fossey and Olga Georges-Picot.

A cryptically directionless, but polished crime drama maintained by its two leads and some bizarre inclusions.


Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie.


Eddie Izzard is genius with his non-stop humor. I could listen all day. His unique approach to life is quite logical. His understanding of discovery (such as the Heimlich Maneuver) is creative. Eddie Izzard captures the heart of what we think. I don't know when I laughed so hard at anyone's off-beat mind.


Stylish, moody, innovative revenge-driven bloodbath. Also cheesy, of course, and sporadically very cheesy. It reminded me a lot of The Big Heat because it has the revenge plot set off by the exact same event, and the girl comes around to the good guy's side because of the same bad behavior by the bad guy. It's sad there's no Gloria Grahame but so fantastic that it's Alain Delon and not Glenn Ford. Could there be anyone as beautiful as Alain going around in a cashmere sweater and trenchcoat? Yet he's totally tough and icy cool. No one nowadays can touch him--though someone like Jude Law could try I guess. Hard for any girl to look good with him. The music was funky and perfect and there were several excellent car chases (and those aren't generally my cup of tea)--especially one willy nilly one in the woods. People also met their dooms in creative and bloody fashion, for instance in a junkyard cruncher. But beyond the cheese, the overall atmosphere was affecting and expertly pulled off. More creativity, excitement and freshness in that 'forgotten' movie than most of what I've seen lately.


I tried twice to get through this film, succeeding the first time - and it was like pulling teeth - and failing the second time despite a great DVD transfer. The problem? It's simply too boring.

If you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene, which takes up most of the second half of the film, you have it made, but it's tough getting to that point. There are some interesting talks by 'Abraham Lincoln' (Henry Fonda) during the trial. The ending is touching as Lincoln walks off and they superimpose his Memoral statue over the screen.

It's a nice story, well-acted and such....but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. I suspect the real Abe Lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film.


We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.

The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.

When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot.

All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.

It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay.

And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.


A very bad film, an amalgam of clichés and historical inaccuracies. A few examples: in an early scene Soviet infantry are attacked by the Germans; instead of staying in their trenches to shoot at them, they advance into open ground to fight them,contrary to all infantry tactics; Kate, one of the central characters, is supposedly the daughter of a White Russian and obsessed with her Russianness, yet she does not speak Russian; a guilt-stricken German airman attacks an anti-aircraft gun- the gun, however, does not fire shrapnel shells but scores a direct hit on his 'plane, which doesn't look much like a German 'plane of WWII. In fairness, when they could escape the preposterous plot and the consequent absurdities there are some genuinely powerful moments- the depiction of people slowly starving to death is convincingly done and moving, but these only show up the rest of it even more. A film to be avoided.


This film is a third rate attempt at a compelling, moody thriller and fails miserably on all three counts. It just about managed to keep my attention as the protagonist was seen slowly and predictably breaking all the life rules he had conveniently set himself at the beginning of the film.

But it's in the last 25 minutes or so that things really start to spiral. A vaguely plausible plotline (and that's being generous)becomes completely rediculous as suddenly new characters appear from nowhere and random and bizzarre events are never explained.

This wouldn't be quite so bad if the scripting wasn't so cheesy, the acting so wooden (despite a strong British cast) and the direction so uninspiring. This is not an example of good British film making nor indeed should it make Tarantino bat an eyelid, at least not in comparison to his earlier work.

My advice in this case, if it's hard to get hold of, don't waste the effort. If you're a Brit like me and it's in your local video shop, steer well clear. Perhaps head to the video entitled 'American Beauty' - now that's an example of great British direction.


As interesting as a sheet of cardboard, this dispensable period piece has little going for it. It's overly wordy and fails spectacularly to evoke the tension and fear that the real-life characters must have felt as they dodged the French Revolution's fickle hand of justice. Eric Rohmer at 82? It shows.


Hey now, yours truly, TheatreX, found this while grubbing through videos at the flea market, in almost new condition, and in reading the back of the box saw that it was somewhat of a 'cult hit' so of course it came home with me.

What a strange film. The aunt and cousin of former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis live in this decaying 28 room house out on Long Island (Suffolk Co.) and share the house with raccoons, cats, fleas (eyow!) and who knows what else. Suffolk Co. was all over them at one point for living in filth and old Jackie herself came by to set things right. Anyway, this is one strange pair, Big Edie and Little Edie...Edie (the daughter) always wears something over her head and dances, sings, and gives little asides to the camera that rarely make much sense. Big Edie (the mother, age 79) apparently likes to run around naked, and while we do get hints of what that might look like thankfully this was tastefully (?) done to the point where we're mercifully spared from that. These women talk and talk and talk, mostly about the past, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except to them. They live in absolute filth, cats doing their business wherever ('Look, that cat's going to the bathroom behind my portrait!'), and one bedroom appears to be their center of operations. If I close my eyes and listen to Big Edie's voice it reminds me very much of my own late aunt, who was from that area of the country and had that Lawn Guyland accent. One scene has Little Edie putting on flea repellent, lovely, you can see all the cats scratching all the time so the place must have been infested. The box refers to these two women as 'eccentric', and I'd have to say in this case it is just a euphemism for 'wacked out of their gourds', but this film is not without its moments where you truly feel something for them. This is equal parts creepy, sad, and disgusting, but I couldn't stop watching once I started. This is not my 'normal' type of flick but I found it to be somewhat fascinating. It won't be for everybody though, guaranteed.