Though I did not begin to read the 'Classics' in literature until I was 47, it's never too late. Jane Eyre is a favorite for many reasons, mainly because there isn't a part of the book I liked less, only parts I enjoyed more. The 1983 TV mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton was everything I hoped it would be. I saw it as a full length movie in 2006. Dalton's 'Mr. Rochester' was very good but I absolutely loved Zelah's 'Jane Eyre'. Relecting on another 'Classics' movie I saw recently, I was disappointed in the production, direction and dialogue. It was only faithful to the avarice and arrogance of Hollywood. Artistic license to the great works in literature is nothing short of plagiarism. Using the title after such license is fraud. Leave it to the Brits to get this one right (among others). You won't be able to reread the book without reliving the movie with it's proper context and spirit. Well done BBC.


TV newscaster Kimberly Wells (Jane Fonda) and her radical camerman Richard Adams (Michael Douglas) are at a nuclear power plant when a serious accident happens. The plants managers play it down but Adams has filmed it all. Wells and Adams try to get it on the air but the corporation that runs the plant prevents it. Plant executive Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) realizes there are serious problems and tests have been falsified. He tries to get executives to believe him--only they know it. Wells, Adams and Godell find all their lives are in danger.

I saw this in a movie theatre in 1979. I was only 17 and it scared me silly. To make matters worse the Three Mile Island accident happened around this time making the movie all that more real. Seeing it over 20 years later it doesn't scare me but it still is an excellent film--it works as a mystery, a gripping drama and an expose on the nuclear power industry. Fonda (with red hair) has one of her best roles as Wells--she perfectly conveys her character's growing suspicion and horror when she realizes a nuclear disaster could happen. Lemmon is (as always) excellent. He starts out believing in his company and the job and slowly starts to unravel when he starts finding things out. He was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award for this. Douglas is good but he has a small part and is completely overshadowed by Lemmon and Fonda.

A really great film--one of the best of the 70s. Don't miss this one!


'Toi le Venin' is Robert Hossein's masterpiece,and one of the great thrillers of the fifties.Based on a Frederic Dard novel,a writer the director often worked with (see also 'le Monte-Charge' which Hossein did not direct but in which he was the lead too),the screenplay grabs you from the first pictures on a desert road by night where a beautiful blonde might be the fieriest of the criminals to the mysterious house where he finds his femme fatale ..and her sister.Then begins a cat and mouse play .One of the sisters is in a wheelchair .But is she really disabled?Which one is the criminal who tried to kill the hero on that night?

The two actresses,Marina Vlady and the late Odile Versois were sisters.

Turn off all the lights before watching.Highly suspenseful.


Really for a short film that looks high budget this is just a candy coated piece of cr*p. It tries so hard to be hollywood. But even hollywood stories have an okay story (sometimes). Money wasted on an effort to be hollywood. Waste of almost a half hour of any viewers time. For the short film buff, look elsewhere...


There are so many words I want to use to describe this movie, but can't really do that can I? This movie is a movie to watch if you just want to sit, laugh, cry and then pee. I'm serious. Don't watch this movie if you're easily offended by profanity, sex, nudity, homosexuality...and everything else associated with nature. Being a woman, and that might not even be a factor, I can watch this movie over and over again. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are absolutely brilliant. Along with all their other debuts, I think Baseketball is the prize winner. I'm laughing now just thinking about some of the stupid things they do in the movie. Watch the movie!! That's all I'm going to say. It's sort of hard for me to leave this comment because I'm one of those people, like Ozzy Osbourne, who has a curse word in almost every line that blurts out of their mouth when they speak. So I'm keeping it professional. Best movie. Heck yeah!!


Guess a few upscale film directors were sitting around sipping their absinthe, grappa, aramangac or jungle juice some night in the 80's during the Cannes or other film festival and one said 'Hey, guys let's do a movie where each of us creates a segment around a world class aria.' Welllll...it kind of sort of worked. Clearly someone was smart enough to select some of the best recordings of the arias chosen, for example Bjoreling's Nessun Dorma, so if you were blind and lying on the floor just listening to the DVD you got more than your money's worth. Not every director succeeded but more did than not and the flick seems to improve with each viewing over the years. My favorite is the eerily beautiful love duet from Die Todt Statd; okay a young naked Elizabeth Hurley is eye candy but her husband singing to her, his wife's ghost, is incredibly beautiful with the love music second only to Otello and Desdemona's 'Gia nella Notte Densa' in all the operatic repertoire. Could the flick been better, sure, what couldn't not have been but it's well worth a view especially of you're in a hyper-romantic mood.


Watch out! This is not a gross out comedy like American Pie or you know the comedies of the new millenium. This is a sweet satire of dog shows focused on a bunch of completely different characters. Oh and the commentator is hilarious!

10/10


This is the only movie that my wife and I have ever walked out on. Totally sucked. We saw it in Omaha even. Not funny at all, looks like a 14 year old kid wrote the humor. I can't believe these real politicians were actually in the movie. awful.


'Death Wish 3' brings back Charles Bronson as one time vigilante Paul Kersey,now retired.yeah,right.before long Kersey is back to his old ways.but this time,its not just a few muggers at a time,its a gang who have taken over a run down part of the city(New York again,by the way.)this time its war,so Kersy Hauls out the big guns(literally) for this.the body count int his one rivals anything Stallone or Schwarzenegger have come up with.this movie is actually somewhat fun to watch,particularly for a few one liners and of course bad guys die,or get severely injured in creative ways,which is always a good thing.the violence is not as personal in this one,its,obviously on a much grander scale,sort of like bombing your victims from afar,rather than one on one combat.this movie is lighter in tone than the 1st 2,making it easier to watch.there's not much import to this film,its more escapism than anything.its also cheesy at times and pseudo-inspirational,but hose scenes fall flat. they should have left the original 'Death Wish' on its own without sequels,but since they didn't,they should have stopped here. 8 /10


I finally watched these episodes in 2008 and I had to continually go back and verify when they were actually produced. They are absolutely scary in that they made spot on fun of what would be the future. Either Parker and Stone lived in Texas and witnessed the idiocy of Gov Bush or they are those weird, eerie people that pay attention to things. Boo, scary! Bush's frat bros invading the White House dressed as Arabs wielding rifles? Bush 'accidentally' executing someone? (No, wait. He did sort of do that as gov.) This may have seemed a failure as a sitcom at the time, but must now be considered as brilliant, if spooky, prescience.


I love Claire Danes, and Kate Beckinsale looks amazingly immature in her role. The movie is flawed only because it seems the two accused seem to be in some Monastery, working like monks in the grass and under strict almost martial-arts-like discipline. The acting and filmography and amazing colors of what is supposed-to-be Thailand is eye-catching, but Claire Daines steals the entire movie, and is unexpectedly profound in her learning the hard lesson of life itself to the very end, in an act of amazing unselfishness unheard of and completely unexpected in the real world. The flaws are minute and I recommend the film, which seems buried sadly forever to rare TV showings. I for one want the film for my collection- a collection of only '10' rated films. Watch it, you will be very touched.


I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.

After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.

The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the 'gun', in a vignette with the most unrealistic 'biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant 'character development' only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.

The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.

The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.

My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.

Art Blose


I love this film. Tense with great characters. The kid from 'Sandlot' is excellent as is Corey Feldman. When the kids storm the bank, it is pure adrenaline. Inside of the bank, it becomes a bit like a 'Lord of the Flies' situation where they turn on each other. Justin Walker from 'Clueless' is wonderful. I saw this on 'Showtime' while channel surfing. It was a pleasant surprise. James Remar is also quite good here as the small town Sheriff. Taylor Nichols who I love from 'Barcelona' does a nice job too as a Federal Agent. I recommend this film for any fan of bank robbery movies with a lot of good characters. I was shocked to discover that Roger Corman was a producer on this, since the film is not a B movie.


Small SPOILERS alert !!!

Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the 'based on a true story' stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.

In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10


From reading the back of the box my first thought was that this is probably a knock off of Saw 2. I couldn't be further from the truth. It seemed to me like they gave somebody with downsyndrom a camera phone and $10.00 and told them to make a movie. The plot didn't exist and neither did the acting. It was almost as if I was watching a silent film about grass growing. It didn't surprise me at all to find out later that the entire film was 'improvised'. By the end of this 'film' I had lost the will to live and I may have gotten AIDS just from viewing this piece of cinematic crap. It was about 70 minutes that I could have spent doing something that was less painful. Like jumping off of a building.


There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.

As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?

Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.

I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with 'Sailor Who Fell from Grace' and 'Manos' ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.

I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.


The Invisible man is a show everybody s gotta love! It reminds me of the old school 80's series(a-team,airwolf,knightrider) The special effects are small but very effective!! but what is most important is the fun they had shooting this series. It really shows! the entire cast fit perfect in there roles and it looks like they can do whatever they want!! especially Paul Ben Victor and Vincent Ventresca. Ventresca really shines in this one! for me its unbelievable that an actor with so much sarcasm is his acting style Doesn't get a shot in a big movie (mr Tarantino this was the show you should have directed! instead of that major boring grave danger(c.s.i)) Get this show if you can. well worth it!!!


A dozen bored surfers, mostly kids in Venice, California, not only reinvent the skateboard but remake a once-forgotten-about suburban fad from the 1950s into an action sports revolution.

Narrarated by Sean Penn, Dogtown depicts life in the more rundown 'Locals Only' beach communities circa 1974, which consisted of mostly of surfing in the early morning tides and loitering. The Zephyr Team (or Z-boys as they are called) spend one summer combating the boredom by building their own boards with the help of a local who owns a surf shop. After they enter re-emerging skateboarding competitions in SoCal, they transfigure it all into their own scene; one that rouses a generation of skateboarders consisting of greats like Tony Hawk, Shaun White and the creators of the of X-Games.

Dogtown puts chronological perspective into skateboarding, and the up-from-the-bootstraps history you never knew it had.

from Andy Frye at MySportsComplex.blogspot.com


Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.

What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.

Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.


It has been 16 years since it's original run, I would have hoped by now some 'marketing wizard' would have promoted a live actor version of this classic by now, or at least sought to re-release the original 65 episodes. I can't fathom why the sci-fi or cartoon network haven't snapped this up. Galaxy Rangers actually had well thought out plots, and even better scripts.The animation was above average quality for it's time, and excellent when compared to the talking slide show Japanese animation of today. It predated the heavy toon-toy tie in market, this may have sealed it's doom too. I would willingly spend cash on a DVD of GR if available.


I'm watching this film as I write this. It's about 45 minutes into the film and there's been so much back and forth and empty drama, I don't quite see where it's going. No facts, just enough to leave you making assumptions. The acting of main daughter is painful. How did this ever get made??? Not the best of Lifetime films.


They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.


First of all, let me comment that the audience LOVED it from the first moment. Perhaps current events in the Middle-East led people to take the attitude, 'I came for a comedy and by George I'm going to enjoy it.' but for whatever reason, everybody seemed really into the comedy of it. The last few times Woody has tried to do a straight comedy (Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending) I've felt like the one-liners felt strained and a bit antiquated. I remember thinking at one point, 'That would have been funny in the early sixties.' So going in to this movie, I was afraid Woody was becoming tone deaf, however, in this one his comic sensibilities were in perfect tune. Admittedly, there were plenty of my fellow AARP card carrying folks in the screening, but there were also plenty of 20-somethings and 30-somethings as well, and they all seemed to get it and give up the occasional belly laugh in addition to numerous guffaws, chuckles and the like. In many instances, the throw-aways had people laughing so loud you missed the next line.

Thematically, Woody was traipsing familiar ground. As I suspected from the trailer, this film had a lot of Manhattan Murder Mystery in it, but then again, there was more than a smidgen of Oedipus Wrecks (New York Stories), Alice, and even a little tribute to Broadway Danny Rose at the very beginning.

Even with Woody in the movie, Scarlett, as Sondra, was, at times the Woody-proxy, but her character was far from the Nebbish that, say, Will Ferrell gave us in Melinda and Melinda or Kenneth Branaugh attempted in Celebrity. Instead of archetypal ticks and quirks, Sondra's nerdishness comes directly from the family history which she shares early on. On numerous occasions the 'family business' leads her to malapropisms that we get as an audience, while the characters on the screen can only perceive them as strange non-sequiturs. Since we are all in on the joke, we can't help but laugh. But the laughs don't come from recognizing the Woody nebbish, but truly from the character. To a great extent, unlike Farrell, Branaugh, Cusack or even Mia Farrow before her, Scarlett is not required to use the Woody voice to evoke the Woody role. Thus, we don't find ourselves ripped out of the narrative as a Woody's voice suddenly emerges from someone else' face.

As my friend commented on the way out, Sid, the character played by Woody, is a supporting role, but more center-stage than I was hoping going in. However, this time Woody seems to have written a character that truly fits his current persona. Unlike his Ed Dobel sage character in Anything Else, or his blind director in Hollywood Ending, this time the character is a comfortable fit. Perhaps more importantly, this time the character works in the story. Within the elevated circles they find themselves in, he is even more fish-out-of-water than Scarlett, which is used to great comedic effect throughout. Sid is a declining, itinerant magician playing to small audiences, but the fact that he is from another era is placed front and center for our enjoyment.

But what about Jackman? What about Ian (Swearengen) McShane? I liked both of them to the extent that they are used in the piece. I particularly liked McShane's short but effective turns. Jackman is charming with the ease of 'Old Money' that was so often portrayed in films from 50 years ago. (Class echoes from Purple Rose of Cairo?)

So what did I think? Short answer, maybe his best straight comedy since 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Less stylized than Mighty Aphrodite. Less caustic than Deconstructing Harry. Less forced than Small Time Crooks or Hollywood Ending. Woody has finally found a comic voice that works in the 21st century.


I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.

That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.

I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.

Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.

I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.

They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.

So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!


If you want to watch a movie and feel good about watching it, then Tigerland is the film for you. I love this movie from top to bottom. This movie's picture-perfect scenes look so real; it's almost like a documentary of something that happened in real life but with drama. Boy, I tell you... REAL drama they actually real 'fought' in one of the scenes (get the DVD listen to the commentary its not obvious). I see this film as a bunch of desperate young men trying to escape an ill-fated destiny, after watching Saving Private Ryan I have an a appreciation of what an 'ill-fated destiny' is and know exactly how the men in the film feel. I see this movie as a crossbreed between 'Stand By Me' and 'Saving Private Ryan.' What do men do when they are with a situation that's 'hard pressed' in real life? Some men go crazy, some men cry, some men through fists, others do drugs, some randomly sleep with hookers ruthlessly trying to eradicate the meaning of love from their life, some try drink the pain away, some jump off buildings or bridges, some feel guilty and others feel so much agony it makes them so sick they collapse - physically. This movie has all those desperate emotions rolled into one ball. But don't get me wrong its not depressing movie, its realistic, its a very very humorous movie, the cocky and funny Bozz (Collin's Character) lights it all up, and on top of that there are about 5 female actresses in the movie; I'll let you figure out what their in there for! With dialogue, war/action sequences, picture perfect scenes along with appropriate music; this movie has it all, like I said: from top to bottom. I don't why Tigerland is heavily under-credited. The best thing about owning the movie is that on the cover it says in big bold writing 'The best film of the year,' and it absolutely falls nothing short of that. Keep the rare gems coming Hollywood, 10/10.


Fabulous, fantastic, probably Disney's best musical adventure. I have loved this film for over 35 years because it is so imaginative, clever and fun. Even despite the silly 'flying bed' scenes, the other scenes and dialog are magical and funny. Could they have picked anyone better than Angela Lansbury to play Eglantine? I cannot think of anyone more suited to the role. Remaking this classic would be as stupid as remaking Mary Poppins.

David Tomlinson, though he had few quality movie roles, absolutely shines in this adventure. He was a comic genius who is often forgotten nowadays. Blustering, prim and proper Englishman -- nobody could really do slapstick and pull it off as gracefully as he does. It would be tragic to remake this film because Tomlinson has been deceased for a few years and nobody could step into his shoes and do his character justice.

The dancing nightgowns and armor have a magical aura about them that other movies with witches just don't capture. I particularly enjoy the parts where the Germans invade Eglantine's house and she must defend it in any way she can.

Bobbing along, bobbing along on the bottom of the beautiful briny, sea. Richard and Robert Sherman outdid themselves on the musical numbers. All of them are fantastic and worth remembering, Portobello Road being one of my favorites.

A great film that still holds up today!!


I have a deep liking for this film despite it appearing deliberately less 'polished' than the other Fred and Ginger films, not to mention the slightly problematic casting of Harriet Hillard in the lead romantic role.

Once again with these films, the plot is of a minor consequence - Astaire plays a rather unlikely sailor (who happens to be a brilliant former hoofer (of course!)) and Rogers an aspiring performer in a seedy dime-a-dance music hall. Although their relationship is bright and fun to watch, they are bogged down by an un-involving main story of Hilliard and Randolph Scott not succeeding in finding any chemistry between them.

Although it was a last minute decision, Hilliard was rather miscast in this as she doesn't have the screen presence to give this film what it needs despite being sweet and likable throughout. The film may have benefited in promoting Lucille Ball's wise-cracking worldy brassy character to a larger role as she simply shined in every small scene, and would have made a great Helen Broderick-type side-kick to Rogers in this kind of bright film (See 'Stage Door', made the following year, for an example of wonderful scenes between these two fantastic actresses). That Scott's one-dimensional Neanderthal character eventually falls in love with Hilliard's is even harder to believe than Astaire being in the Navy!

Now onto the important part, the singing and dancing: Nothing more can be said about 'Let's Face the Music and Dance' other than it is brilliant and moving and perfectly executed and I often finish watching that scene with tears in my eyes. However other songs in the film deserve some recognition as well; 'I'm putting all my Eggs in One Basket' is a lovely example of the comedic instincts of Astaire and Rogers, and almost pokes fun at their reputation of bursting into spontaneous, perfectly synchronized dancing. Other highlights are 'I'd Rather Lead the Band' and 'Let Yourself Go' which show how these two talents could perform as brilliantly alone as together. I nearly forgot to mention that this is one of the few (if not the only) time we see Astaire brilliantly play on the piano; It seems this man's talents were endless!

Overall, I actually prefer this to 'Top Hat' and 'Swing Time' (although only just), as it is more earthy and performed so enthusiastically by all involved, it is hard to dislike the fun factor.


Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan once again angers his superiors with his maverick approach to police work. Refusing to take a vacation he is given a simple case which takes him outside of San Francisco. However, he soon discovers a link between a recent murder in the city and a murder outside of the city, which leads him to the trail of a revenge killer.

As an entry in the Dirty Harry franchise the film starts with some very promising moments, including the legendary 'Go ahead, make my day' line that Eastwood delivers wonderfully through clenched teeth before single handedly foiling a robbery. Very badass and it just what fans can expect from him. However, the film soon shifts gears and focuses on the mysterious revenge killer. The problem is that this killer isn't all that mysterious as she is characterized as much as Harry is. This really detracts from the presence of the main character who ruled all of his previous film appearances with, pardon the pun, Magnum Force.

On the bright side this new storyline does draw several parallels to Harry's own unorthodox methods and gives his character dramatic depth that was not there before, but fans that were looking for another badass Harry outing will more than likely be somewhat disappointed. However, a tense climax ends the film on an exciting note so if you don't mind something a little different, it is a good movie for fans. --- 7/10

Rated R for violence and a rape scene


For all of the hype about this film, I kept an open mind as to what I would ultimately think. And, although a bit slow at times, the first 90% of the movie is quite good, with more than a few 'old time' scares that make one jumpy and unsettled. I actually thought the cinematography was excellent regarding many of these scenes. Where Dark Remains fails, however, is in its climax. The ending of the film and the denouement are what seems to be MILES APART from its body. The storyline completely falls on its face with an illogical conclusion and, the answer I was seeking most - what REALLY happened to Emma? - was not elucidated upon! The rationale for the negative energy was ludicrous at best, and in the end, I felt very cheated. What could have been a superb horror film was ultimately haunted by a terrible ending.


I read most of the comments here were everybody saw only the flaws of the movie. I agree, the director it's not Kuprik, the actors are not Oscar winners, but it has something everyone could relate to. I don't want to spoil but telling more then the plot - the finishing of school and the trip to a big party, or if you like to see beyond the metaphor, is choosing the way trough life. Remember that days of youth? the days when you or our friend acted like the characters? Or do you think you should acted like one of them and now you regret you didn't? if you can go back in to that time and if you can ask yourself any of this questions maybe the movie wasn't so bad.


Anywhere But Here is not exactly anything new, but the excellent performances by both of the main actresses made it worth watching. Sarandon and Portman are a mother and daughter who move from rural Wisconsin to sunny Beverly Hills, California, in search of a better life. The main conflict comes from the fact that Natalie would much rather have stayed in Wisconsin with all of her friends and family, and she felt that she was forced to go to California with her overbearing mother.

(spoilers) While it's true that the film as a whole is disappointingly predictable, Susan Sarandon and especially Natalie Portman give performances that are so good that they almost make the material seem new. Anywhere But Here doesn't cover any new ground, but it does have the rare quality of being able to take overused subject matter and make it fairly interesting again. Also seen in this movie is the most heartbreaking facial expression seen in years, seen on Natalie Portman's face when her mother drops her off on the side of the road and she watches the car fade into the distance. Particularly noteworthy is the ironic subplot about Natalie's mother pressing her to become an actress, as well as a very convincing performance from Shawn Hatosy as one of Natalie's very close cousins from back home. His death is a tragic cliché almost always seen in movies like this one, but the rest of the film makes up for numerous weaknesses like this. Not great, but Anywhere But Here is definitely worth a look.


...so where's my friggin trophy? I seriously expected a banner and confetti to drop from my ceiling for watching a full 30 minutes of that crap. Comedy Central is truly dropping the ball lately, trying to fill the void left by Chappelle with multiple seasons of a retarded man impersonating retarded men. Dah duh nah!! If you pay attention to the show, you'll notice that when Mencia isn't stuttering over punchlines and laughing at his own skits, he only makes exaggerated observations which seem to lack any sense of humor. You ever notice how people in Buick's drive really slow? It's like Dah duh nah! Not even the midgets and half naked hot chicks manage to distract from Mencia's distinct lack of talent. Furthermore, Mencia isn't even a 'wetback' as he constantly and adamantly proclaims he is, which makes him a fraud on top of it all.

If anything good could be said about Mencia, it's his effort. The man clearly has no talent, but like a wounded antelope in the mouth of a hungry alligator, god knows he's trying.


An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema  when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.

Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love  along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action  but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend  in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.

There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much  may it be shown to the end of Time.


I have seen The Perfect Son about three times. I fail to see how this film is a gay film, I am not even gay, but I don't see it as a gay film. It is a film with a gay character, I can't see why every film with a gay character should be strictly a film about being gay. I find the film to be sympathetic to the study of death, the death of someone who is your kin. I think Theo turns his life around fairly quickly after rehab because he wants to and watching his brother dying in front of him makes him reassess his life. I found the dialog in the scene when Theo tells Ryan he is going to be a father to be very moving, Ryan states that he doesn't want to know about the things he is never going to see or share with anyone. Isn't that horrific and sad? I highly recommend the film.


If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.

Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the 'hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops' school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.

Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.

This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!

You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.

The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. 'Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?' Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.

So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.


Yet another remake of 'Fistful of Dollars', Sergio Leone's remake of Kurosawa's 'Yojimbo' (suggested by the novel 'Red Harvest').

This one is strictly a B-Movie; taken as that, it is rather enjoyable. the direction is crisp, the acting full of verve, the limitations of its 'direct-to-video' photography well-handled.

The weakness of the film is in the disastrous decision to marry the 'fistful'/'yojimbo' plot to a sub-plot from Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. Although leone directed both 'Fistful' and 'West', his motivations behind the two films couldn't be anymore different. The 'Man With No Name' (Eastwood) is a borderline socio-path with a soft spot for broken families. Harmonica (Chaeles Bronson) is obsessed with his own broken family, and obsessed with revenge. These two characters would not have had much to do with each other. In order to bring them together, 'Gun Crazy' has to twist it's plot and complicate it until we lose track of which story we're actually following.

But this is a B-Movie after all, and filled with action and silliness; it's entertaining on that level, just don't expect anything more.


This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.

Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.

The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters.

I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though.

What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??


'Smithereens' is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-)


The plot doesn't begin to describe the film: a man is writing a film, or rather, *this* film. It's totally self referential to the point that you think it's going to fold in on itself like a black hole. The writer writes something and it happens, or something happens and he writes about it.

It's very philosophical, like 'Waking Life' but more Zen oriented and for that matter, much better, in my opinion. At one point there are person-on-the-street interviews and then you see shots of these people being filmed, and then you discover that their responses are scripted when one keeps flubbing her lines. There is beautiful scenery and optical illusions.

I hope it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again more carefully. Seen at Cinequest (the San Jose, CA film festival) on 2/25/2002.


This is a nice movie with good performances by Paz Vega and Leonardo Sbaraglia . Of course Vicente Aranda is a legend in Spanish Cinema and surely one of the great directors in Spanish cinema but I don't think this is one of his greatest movies even if it's fine. The screenplay plays with the introduction of Merimeé as a character , it's a nice touch but it's unbelievable. The music is composed by Jose Nieto , National Spanish Prize in Cinema. I mean this movie is very good in all the technical aspects .There are very good actors in supporting roles like Antonio Dechent , Maria Botto and others . I give it 7 out of 10 cause I think this could be a better movie but as it is it is not boring at all.


If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it.

It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.

However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.

'Dominick' is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, 'Eugene,' played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's 'Field Of Dreams.'

Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads 'Hulk' comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of 'slow' guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see.


Revenge on us the viewing public perhaps. I sat through this 2 hour movie and i was waiting for the second act to kick in so that the movie lived up to its title. But Costner never avenges his lovers fate she dies and the movie ends. I was left wondering where the rest of the movie was. If a movie is called Revenge then the hero better get some by the end of the film. I had a choice of seeing this or Black Rain at the cinema thankfully i saw The other brothers movie at the cinema instead.i caught up with this turkey on video. there was one good thing about the film and was its beautiful theme tune. Listen to the cd.dont watch this its awful. 1 out of 10


An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ 'Deathstalker 2', 'Chopping Mall', and 'The Assault', a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote 'Sorority House Massacre 2' & 'Dinosaur Island' for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously 'silly' Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not 'Citizen Kane,' and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called 'Heatseeker' the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!)


'Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark' is a sort of 'Harper Valley P.T.A.' with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle 'Vinnie' (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. 'Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark' is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of 'Grease.') There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!


Origins of the Care Bears & their Cousins. If you saw the original film you'll notice a discrepancy. The Cousins are raised with the Care Bears, rather than meeting them later. However I have no problems with that, preferring to treat the films as separate interpretations. The babies are adorable and it's fun watching them play and grow. My favourite is Swift Heart Rabbit. The villain is a delightfully menacing shapeshifter. I could empathise with the three children since I was never good at sports either. Cree Summer is excellent as Christy. The songs are sweet and memorable. If you have an open heart, love the toys or enjoyed the original, this is not to be missed. 9/10


This was indeed an amazing adaption. I missed the first episode so I unfortunately missed out on the bonding between the characters and the smooth flow of the storyline. But as soon I watched the second and then the third instalment I was just blown away. I ordered the DVD less than a week later and unable to wait for it to come I went straight out and brought the book. From the moment I opened it I was hooked, I just couldn't put it down. I decided to finish the whole book before I dare watch the DVD at all. I preferred the book because it got inside the characters minds, you could understand totally where they were coming from and what there role was within the story. They missed a lot out of the adaption which was disappointing as the book is a master piece and I think they could have done it superbly if they had been able to stretch it over a longer period of time. But considering only being able to be fitted into a 3 hour slot I think it was done excellent. It followed the main twisted storyline brilliantly. And the actors which were enrolled as the main characters where amazing! The love making scene was pure beautiful. It was so tender and loving and just showed how natural homosexual love can be. I was totally blown away with both the book and the TV adaption! I loved both of Sarah Waters previous novels and also found the Tipping the Velvet adaption quite enjoyable. But when I read and watched Fingersmith I knew none of her previous novels/adaption could beat it. Sarah Waters has indeed exceeded herself this time! I recommend that you watch this adaption! If Tipping the Velvet wasn't your thing, then don't let it put you off this one. Fingersmith is a whole new ball game. It is a beautiful yet dark twisted story about love, greed and betrayal...

A MUST SEE!


'Heaven Can Wait' is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.

The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.

This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.


True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean Flex was 'That Guy'. I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is 'A Must See'. Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love. Karen


Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, 'Hmm... this isn't so bad!' I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this 'film' (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.


I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.

It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.

For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in 'The Wizard of Oz' by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.

Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.

There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, shows the spark of what could have been. Her acidic delivery reminds us of the contemporary angle the film could have taken. Her words revive and put a big of much needed naughtiness in the film, and it is exciting to see that it could really fly, then she is gone. She is in the film all of six minutes, and she fades away in the middle of the muddle.

Here is a movie that raised our anticipation level and truly disappointed us, a film that could have joined the successful 'Sex in the City' who made an amazing transition to the big screen because it respected its source material and didn't compromise. It gave us more, bigger and better adaptation. It truly updated what had made it successful before. 'The Women' in its present reincarnation needs to go back and rework itself, much like 'The Hulk' did it this year, find more suitable performers, a really good writer, and most of all, someone who truly treasures what good movies are about.


The photography of this bid-budget production is surprisingly bad. Colors are muddy and brownish and the photography has very 80ish look to it. Direction and editing are often quite uninspired and TV-movie like, too. *And* at first the movie only seems to want to torture its viewers with lurid images of sex and violence. Hans Zimmer's score is also a typically simple and bland work of this overrated, untalented composer.

But if you are willing to watch the movie further you are rewarded with a very moving family story, a sort of European version of Edna Ferber's family epos Giant. While at first you wonder why Clara married this idiotic man, even his character gets more depth and more background one can judge him by. Clara delivers the movie's spiritual lesson, a great and moving statement set against the terrible happenings in her country. Her daughter, whose lover is a young Antonio Banderas at the beginning of his international career, understands that lesson and ultimately tries to live by it. The way the plot was constructed with the ending mirroring the beginning was great. The actors all do a great job, too. I was wondering 'Who is the actress playing Blanca?' all the time, but of course, it was a really young Winona Ryder!

All in all, this movie really made me want to read the book.


I agree with the previous comment, what a disappointment. Rented it thinking it was going to be a good movie since Mira and Olivier where in it. I was surprised by their performance, expected more since they're good actors.

Thought it was a slow beginning but it got worse. I even laughed at some bad stunts!! when is supposed to be a mystery movie. You can even guess who is the killer beforehand!!!

For real what happened??

Sorry to say but don't even bother you'll waste time and money.

Boring!!!


Gary Busey is superb in this musical biography. Great singing and excellent soundtrack. The Buddy Holly Story is a much better movie than La Bamba. From reading other comments, there may be some historical inaccuracies. Regardless, it is a fun toe-tapping film, and a good introduction to Buddy Holly's music.


Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.

The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be 'redeemed' at the end of the film.

By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.

There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.

But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.

This is not a 'Bend it like Beckham' where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's 'other' community: the English.

I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production.


I could almost wish this movie had not been made. Stan Laurel was dying, and it shows in his face, even more angular and gaunt than usual. A poor script, and inept supporting cast.


As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see 'The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)' for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution.

The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of 'The Scarlet Pimpernel.'

As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: 'Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;' you could also pick a tune from 'Les Miz.'

I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of 'The Scarlet Pimpernel.' Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody.

Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was 'Why are revolutionaries so grim?' She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.

(originally written 8/11/2002)


This is a superb TV series, it's sympathetic and for once realistic! portrayal of lesbian women is delicately handled and well done. On top of that the directing is wonderful and the settings sumptuous and rich, a real treat. If you missed the first one I advise you watch next weeks, 9PM, BBC 2


It's the 1980's and the teenagers are ready to party it up in a scary old house that is rumored to be haunted by the ghost of Murder McGee. After mistakenly conjuring the dead through an unfinished conversation on an Ouija board, the kids are forced to fight to the death battling a vengeful ghost who possesses and kills all of their friends one by one. Sound familiar? It's supposed to. It's clearly marketed to pay homage to the classic 80's slashers with the tagline: 'Excessive violence. Gratuitous nudity. Zero budget.'

Can't get enough; It's pure entertainment! I enjoyed the humor and the way it poked fun at all the horror cliché's, but at the same time embraced what was fun about movies from this time. There is something you get with this movie you never got with the old 80's slasher films though: good acting. The entire cast was very talented and you don't see that very much in any low budget flicks, recent or otherwise. There was a lot of chemistry between the characters. I was very entertained throughout the entire film, and I am fully convinced the writer/director and cast will go a long way in their separate careers. The script was very well written, and the dialogue flowed naturally.

The effects were a bit amateur and the scenes were not lit well, but the fact that this movie admits on its cover there was practically NO BUDGET, I already know this going in. This film makes it simple to politely ignore its faults and just sit back and enjoy. Although this is not an Oscar award winning opus, it never claims to be, and props to that. It's a lot of fun. If you like slashers, you'll really appreciate this film. If you like blood and boobies, you'll appreciate it also.


In many ways DIRTY WORK is a predictable L&H short on the surface with the boys going to sweep someone`s chimney . Guess what happens next ? That`s right slapstick at its most sucessful ensues .

But there`s one or two things that seem untypical . Ollie for example is very unlikable , he`s arrogant , he`s rude , and not only to Stan look at the way he addresses the servant with ' HEY YOU ' and takes a childish huff very easily with his catchphrase being ' I have nothing to say ' . In short Ollie plays a bully in a very unlikable way and I much prefer to see him to play the arrogant coward where he`s always at his funniest

DIRTY WORK also lacks the reportary regulars of the other L&H shorts like Finlayson , Long , Busch and Housman which means when we switch to the mad scientist plotline there`s a slightly creepy atmosphere that jars with the rest of the movie

Having said that this is still a good short mainly down to Stan . Also watch out for a scene featuring a fish . Many jokes/plots from L&H feature fish and this is another one


Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.

There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the 'femme fatale', but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.

A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.


A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)

I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues.

Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act.

On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film.

In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame.

In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.


Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.


This movie was so cool! I saw it on a Friday night with a couple of my friends. While the first credits were rolling, we saw that Lionsgate Films had made this movie. They are the ones that made that stupid movie Wolf Creek, which was totally gay! When we saw this, we groaned. We thought it was going to be like Wolf Creek, but we were so wrong! The movie was not only better than Wolf Creek (which really isn't that hard) it is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time! They really redeemed themselves with this movie. It was gory, smart, and scary, which are the combinations to an awesome horror movie. Kane is awesome as Jacob Goodnight, and Christina Vidal, Samantha Noble, and Luke Pegler did pretty good jobs as part of a group of delinquents cleaning an old motel. It had some gross scenes, and you actually kinda feel sad for some of the people who die. All in all, a great horror movie to watch on a Friday or Saturday night with the lights off and with friends. Just don't watch it in a hotel.


From watching only the trailer to Theodore Rex, you would think this is a bad buddy cop comedy with Whoopi Goldberg and a guy in a dinosaur costume. That is true, but this is mostly a futuristic story, which looks a lot like Batman Forever with it's direction style and weird character designs. It was mismarketed, and should have been marketed as a futuristic tale, instead of just a lame cop comedy. Whether or not this movie is mismarketed, it's still a horrible movie.

In the future, dinosaurs have been brought back to life through amazing technology, and they talk and walk around like humans. Teddy is a dinosaur detective who is never taken seriously, but after a dinosaur is murdered, he's given the case to work on, but he has to be partners with the toughest cop of them all, Katie Coltrane (Whoopi Goldberg). It's up to this mismatched duo to solve the murder, and it's up to the audience to stay awake long enough to make it through this piece of crud.

Teddy starts the picture as a normal acting character, but by the end he is unbearable to listen to. For some reason along with being a detective, he's also a bad comedian and a bad impersonator. He does imitations of famous people and accents, and has some truly awful lines. Whoopi blames him for farting and he says, 'It's not my butt trumpet!' Wow! What a puerile, immature line, even for a kid's movie of this caliber. Whoopi is also annoying and rude to everyone. I was hoping Teddy would bite her head off the entire length of the film.

This movie never knew what it wanted to be. When the futuristic scenes and action occur, there is no comedy or humor. In any non-action scenes, the characters try to be as funny as they can, which just results in nonstop straight faced boredome. The action scenes don't work as they're too weird and not violent enough, and as stated earlier, the comedy is just a bunch of massacred jokes. Nothing ever works here.

Having a dinosaur/human detective duo seems like a pretty original movie, if nothing else. Nope! This movie is a huge rip-off of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Just replace dinosaurs with cartoons, and set it in the future, and it's the exact same plot. A man is killed, a dinosaur is killed. A dinosaur and detective solve the murder, a toon and detective solve the murder. The bad guys in Roger Rabbit are Christopher Lloyd and weasels. The bad guys here are a guy who sounds like Christopher Lloyd and guys who act just like the weasels. The club scene in Roger Rabbit where Jessica Rabbit walks down the stage is imitated with dinosaurs. This is a huge rip-off of a much better movie!

Overall, this is a bad movie, not even deserving of it's straight to VHS stature.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG for mild violence, language and crude humor.


Gary Cooper is a cool headed guy. Always liked his easy going level headed characters. As some others have commented, there are some oddities in the script, such as a US Marshall who got his job and can't even hit a barn with a pistol. A rancher with about thirty hands but can't seem to keep his cattle from being run off.

But there is plenty of the quick thinking, straight shooting Cooper to keep you entertained.

This movie was made in 1950. People in their 20's and 30's have trouble understanding those movies were made for entertainment not Oscars.

To expect Oscar material does this film injustice. It is about the good guys finding a way to round up the bad guys.

So rent, borrow, or buy this movie, pop some corn and enjoy the Coop one more time.


I saw this movie primarily to see Brooke Burke (as Jill), who I had meet briefly in LA at a modeling trade show, in her first feature film. I was hoping to see more of her, but thought she did very well acting her role. Since she is such a beautiful and poised TV host, and model, it was not surprising. I was left wondering why she was killed, and what happened as a result. Maybe I just missed it.

I wasn't really sure about the genre of this movie, and although I liked the actors I felt like it was for a college audience. I tried to keep an open mind considering horror wasn't my favorite genre, but felt like I had outgrown the gags. It seemed to drag out in some places, leave you guessing in some places about what powers the evil professor had, and, like a lot of other films had an unsatisfying ending.

Having written a couple of scripts, I know a lot of this is difficult and may come down to personal opinions, how many movies you have seen & studied, and those you relate with at a point in time.

In a nutshell, I found it interesting, but not a satisfying plot and ending for me. If Jill (Brooke Burke) would have returned through the portal in the end and kicked everyone's ass that would be a satisfying ending and would earn a higher rating.


I went looking for this movie in typical fan obsession. I just wanted to check it out. I was not expecting much of anything. After all, a musician, an actor and a screenplay writer? Not possible for so much talent to reside in one person. Right??

Wrong!! Obsession aside, it quickly became one of my favorites! The story line and characters are not lost in the typical hyped up Hollywood special effects. The story plucks at your emotions and pulls you along. As the credits roll by, you suddenly realize you were glued until the end.

At times, the acting seems a little over the top. I do, however, believe it's done with comedic intent and very fitting of the character. Otherwise, I wouldn't have expected the level of acting witnessed.

It's worth seeing more than once. I find myself laughing hysterically or gasping unexpectedly over something I either missed or forgot about the first time or two around.

I completely recommend this movie. Feel free to go in with your doubts, but I'm sure it will find a place on your shelf.


How do you know if a movie is good or not? It is the impact it has on you that makes the difference. 'Dead Man Walking' upset me a great deal. I watched it twice. I don't know if I will be strong enough to watch it again. No, I did not feel good at all after watching it, but the film was as successful as it can be.

Robbins did a great job in incorporating all aspects of this controversial topic. He avoided making an argument that could easily be seen as biased or subjective. I hope that many people get to see 'Dead Man Walking'. I believe that anyone who supports or opposes the death penalty so enthusiastically should see the movie.

I don't know what else it could take to finally convince everyone that this relic from ancient times does not have a place in modern society anymore.

The movie itself does not make an argument for or against death penalty. It describes reality. The reality is the best argument against the death penalty.

A 10/10 for great performances, good filmmaking, and for the most important film made in years

Thank you, Tim Robbins!


I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.


If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.


If you played 'Spider-Man' on the PS version, then you've seen it all. To truly experience it you should get the DC version. Simply put it's a much graphically superior game; the textures are sharp, levels are easy to navigate, and it has much better sound then it's PS cousin. I bought this game back in late '00s and it still holds up even till this day. Well, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is a much superior and strategic game but if you're a fan of 'ol Web Head then you owe it yourself to pick this up for your gaming library. Swinging around the city as Spidey has never looked this good and dead-on in a video game. If you have a Dreamcast, snag this up for cheap. The DC version is simply incredible.


I saw it in Europe-plex. Great movie!!

This film is an exploration of the Spirit and the Flesh in modern times. Protagonist Jim Kirk, drives an unwieldy RV across America, stopping often to fill his gas-guzzling tank. He is middle-aged and confused . He fuels his thick, diabetic body with cups of coffee and radio chatter. He is the Flesh: agitated and sometimes spaced out, fairly oblivious to the growing tension around him but feeling it as twinges of discomfort.

The Spirit suffuses the film through speeches and other sounds, as well as what appears and goes by in the visual field. The Spirit eventually collides with the Flesh and Kirk goes down, unable to comprehend what has happened to him. He's been in denial about just how bad things have become due to he waywardness of all of us, because we are all focused on the needs and desires of our flesh. We're all in the same denial and so we, like Kirk are in danger of going down and being blown away by desert sands just like him.


This is more than just an adaptation of Bond: it's a plain rip off! With mediocre character sketches that Ian Fleming would not have approved of, this film goes down as the worst 007 movie. An older (even haggard) Connery tries to relive his past 12 years later. The result is a humourless, tacky version of the classic hero. Give me Roger Moore any day!


Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der Lügner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.

Jirí Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.

Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodský) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?

Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladimír Michálek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.

After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.

After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's 'Divided We Fall (2000)', it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see.


Nick Cage is Gates, a treasure hunter (oh, excuse me... treasure 'protector', whatever that means) who is descended from a long line of treasure hunters. One of his ancestors had been given a clue to the whereabouts of a huge treasure that our Founding Fathers, most if not all Freemasons, had decided to hide because they just didn't want to finance their Independence all that badly.

The first clue turns out to be in a long-lost ship hidden in the Arctic. Gates and his crew, consisting of financier Ian (Sean Bean), Movie Dork Riley (Justin Bartha of the immortal 'Gigli') and a couple of faceless lackeys, enter the cargo hold of the ship. They immediately spill out tons of gunpowder all over the floor, not that this is significant in any way. At last they find the clue (a skeleton is hovering over it) and it turns out to be a pipe with writing... on it. Sort of. Don't ask me to explain.

It's a riddle, and despite the fact that his expedition is clearly miffed at not finding the actual treasure, Gates wanders around yammering to himself about the meaning of the riddle, in this frozen cargo hold, while the crew just stands around slack-jawed. I mean, come on. Someone should have been a little vocal in their disappointment of coming all the way to the freaking Arctic and not finding anything interesting, but they just stand there as Gates enters his own world, solving the riddle.

The next clue turns out to be on the Declaration of Independence. Ian decides to steal it. Gates is appalled. Various characters deliver gratingly obvious exposition (get used to it). All this leads to Ian's lackey pulling a gun on Gates, and the gunpowder going off in a big explosion. (oh, that's why they spilled all the gunpowder! Huh!!) Ian and his henchmen make their escape, and Gates and Movie Dork Riley walk nine miles in subzero temperatures to an Inuit village in order to stop them.

To stop them, Gates concludes after trying the FBI and Super Archivist Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), Gates and Riley must steal it themselves. Riley then tells Gates in excruciating detail why they can not steal the Declaration, because it's so protected with metal and laser eyes and high tech security blah blah. Gates then tells Riley that there's an opportunity to steal it from the Preservation Room. Does Riley know what the Preservation Room is, Gates asks? 'A place where they make jams and jellies?' I am not kidding; that's the actual line. Bartha doesn't deliver it like a joke, either. So Riley does all this research about the Library of Congress and the Archives and water and sewage, fercryinoutloud, but doesn't know what the Preservation Room is. This pretty much indicates what level this script is on.

To make the rest of this short, Gates does in fact make off with the D of I, in a ridiculous break-in that could only happen in a movie. (I also hate the way they depict computer monitor technology in movies -- full of improbable and impractical graphics and fonts.) Abigail Chase ends up tagging along for convenience's sake, and as an obvious 'love interest' angle. At one point, the three of them, on the run from the law, discuss all their plans really loudly in a clothing store, surrounded by people.

A series of clues and the kidnapping of Gates' father, played by a dyspeptic Jon Voight, leads good guys and bad guys alike to a huge Indiana Jones fun-house located underneath New York City. Odd that the subway builders never found this thing. Gates and Gates Senior lead Ian off on a wild goose chase. Ian believes they're trapped in a cul-de-sac and leaves them there. However, after they're gone, Riley asks how they're going to get out. Gates...

... oh boy ...

... presses a button and a door opens. No, I'm serious. A button, like they might have on a vacu-flush lavatory in an office building. Good thing he knew where that was. Anyway, after some more knob-twiddling, they find this immense treasure room (remember, this is all underneath Manhattan!) full of all sorts of historyish golden things. Riley gets to deliver a really stupid line. Again. And FBI officer Harvey Keitel forgives them, arrests Sean Bean, and allows the two chemistry-less leads to get married.

For any viewer, I think it would be hard to ignore all the exposition, the leaps of logic, and the stereotyped characters for very long. Though some of its exposition involves nice history lessons inserted into conversation at random moments. I'd like more conversations like that in my life.


Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named 'baby' to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.


Of the spate of Austen films from the 1990s, this is my favorite, more even than 'Persuasion,' which was the one that converted me to Austeniana. Before seeing this 'Emma' I had seen two previous versions, but in one Emma seemed all wrong, more like Lady Teazle, and in the other she seemed half wrong, like a possible impostor, whereas here she seemed just right, young and silly and stubborn. In general I thought the attitude and the atmosphere of the production conveyed the charm of the novel exceedingly well; indeed it is one of the sweetest, merriest things I have ever seen, rather in the nature of a Christmas treat. The script is unusually well formed, and the adapter's additions, like the shaft of light that reveals Harriet to Emma in church, are all in keeping. Mark Strong as Knightley is not what I would have expected, but I enjoyed him very much: he strongly brings out the plain-spoken, practical side of the character, in contrast with Emma's affectations, and his choleric outbursts against Frank Churchill are quite funny. Bernard Hepton makes Mr. Woodhouse a figure of almost Carrollian absurdity; Samantha Morton as Emma's protégé is exactly as soft and exactly as firm as she ought to be. And as in the same producers' 'Pride and Prejudice,' care is taken that the eventual couplings of characters can be believed--uniquely in some cases. For me this production was and remains a delight.


I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.

It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.

If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.


I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain 'critics', only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.

As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in 'another' language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10


My roommate got the No, No, Nanette soundtrack as a dub on a tape and she proceeded to listen to it non-stop. After it finally totally brainwashed me into submission, I found the songs to be irresistible, especially the famous, I want to be happy, but I can't be happy... But of coarse from the soundtrack I had no idea what the film was about. So the other day I saw a copy of it at the video store and I rented what was supposed to be a long lost version of the film. I was thinking that it was going to be amazing, because the soundtrack is so cute. Unfortunately most of the songs that I loved were nowhere to be found in the video I saw. Now I've never seen the 1930 version of the musical but this version was sadly disappointing because there was very little singing and practically no dancing and beside that the sound was really bad through out and you couldn't really understand what people were saying a lot of the time. Really the only highlights of this film were the outrageous 1940's fashion. Nanette wears this crazy hat with two feathers that stick out like rabbit ears and Kansas Kitty has this bizarre feather muff that she keeps on her fore arm and then has herself wrapped in this net scarf. The one dance sequence is a little weird too with Nanette doing this weird ballet stuff with pin-up girl imagery superimposed on top of her. Actually one more bright spot of the film was the artist Guillespe who dreams of being a fine artist but it currently condemned to drawing pin-up girls for money. I like how Guillespe keeps it old school, and disses Nanette when his masterpiece, the piece that was to make his career, is sold by Nanette for a paltry $5250. Doesn't she realize that that piece was his immortality? Silly rabbit/girl with your feather rabbit ears on your hat. When will you learn? Why doesn't he just pencil in a cigarette before the ad men take the Work away?