This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.

Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from 'Cheers'). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from 'Office Space' up to 'Sex & the City'). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.

Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping 'what the f**K!,' baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.

This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have 'Norm' from 'Cheers' and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.


Career criminal and crime boss, Abel Davos (Lino Ventura) has been on the run for more than 10 years, hiding out in Milan, Italy. In his absence, he has been sentenced to death in his home country of France for his crimes. Disillusioned with his life in Italy and with the police there closing in on him, he decides to return to his old stomping ground in Paris. Sending his wife Therese and two young sons ahead to Nice, Abel and his next in command Raymond Naldi do one final heist, to fund their new lives back in France. The heist proffers a meagre half million francs, way less than their sources had suggested, despite this and with the police in chase they both make it to Nice, where they hideout briefly. After stealing a pleasure boat from a local, they aim to make it to San Remo a tourist spot where they will blend in more readily, but they are stopped by armed customs officers on a deserted beach, a shoot out ensues and Therese and Naldi are both killed. A now wounded Davos with two kids in tow is going to be easily spotted by police, so he calls on his old friends in Paris to send help, but they have moved on since their old friend went into hiding and are not too inclined to take a risk themselves, so they send small time thief, Eric Stark (Jean Paul Belmondo) to rescue him. Davos is disgusted that such a lowly thief is sent to his aid, despite the fact he hits it off immediately with the charming Stark, he sets out to find out why he has been snubbed, but their betrayal doesn't stop there.

Classe Tous Risques (aka the Big Risk) was written for the screen by former death row inmate and crime writer Jose Giovanni (Le Trou, Le Clan des Siciliens), with Ventura already on board for the project, Giovanniwanted someone unique to direct the project, Ventura suggested an assistant director that had caught his attention on a previous project,one Claude Sautet, best known at the time for assisting Georges Franju on Les Yeux sans Visage. Sautet immediately agreed and the rest as they say is history. Sautet crafted a fine gangster film, that plays heavily on characters and relationships. Davos constantly in hiding has plenty of time to reflect on his life, past, present and future, his friendships that no longer seem to be what he believed they were, his now deceased wife and what will become of his two young sons. Ventura as a character actor has always amazed me, being both comfortable and convincing in both the police and criminal fraternity, here his world weary performance is sublime and powerful as his world crumbles all around him, as the loneliness and solitude of a man on the run kicks in. Ventura's former profession as a pro wrestler gets plenty of use as he throws parisien hoodlums around with a consummate ease. Belmondo as Stark enlivens the other storyline within the film, that of his budding relationship with a girl he meets on the road trip. With his forthright charm, his coming clean to this woman in danger that he is but a 'Voleur' and that 'the only good thing about me is my left' as he knocks out her aggressor, is also a joy to behold, as she falls for him anyway. Belmondo's performance was overlooked at the time, as Godard's A bout de Soufflé was released only three weeks previous, Godard attaining the credit for discovering the new kid on the block, his versatility within these two films, being there for all to see and admire. Sautet's film is a classy affair, using plenty of attractive locations, the film also has very sparse dialogue, Sautet preferring to let the actors do the work with the merest of looks or glances sufficing to further the story, needles to say this Noir fan will be checking out more of Sautet's work in the future.


Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).

I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.


I remember a time when the only thing that did exist where clubs, drugs pubs and parties. This movie came out a couple of years after i started going clubbing. If i had never discovered the ravier side of things this movie may not have made sense to me. That night when i watched it for the 1st time, with some mates, i was completely blown away. I had never watched a movie that hit so close to the reality of where i was in my life at that time. Almost everything i could relate to in some way. There was never 1 character i could fully relate to but more a combination of all of them in one way or another. My mates where no different and i remember us all saying that they where us or we where them. We had all been out that weekend together doing exactly what the crew do in HT. We where coming down while we watched and when the movie 'came down' i remember actually coming down a bit further. it was actually quite depressing in our room during those 'low points'. Thats what's so good about Human Traffic. it really taps the whole situation.

its a unique movie in the way its not plot driven, but then its not completely character driven although the characters are important. it always seemed to be based on the situations. Situations as a group and as individuals. Each character is lost in life, for their own reasons. yet each of them responds to the lostness in the same way. work any job to make money to pay for the weekend and escape it all. for them its their holiday. But the reality is you cant truly escape. Another situation they all have to face.

Me and my mates where no different from these guys. We all had our own stuff going on. Human traffic helped explain to us what we didn't understand about our selves. It does it in a way that doesn't talk down to you. It made us feel like we weren't the only ones out there like us and that the lessons learned where ones many others, from all over the world, had gone thru. it wasn't until my lifestyle changed from party popper to career driven that i would fully understand this movie. these days i watch HT, every now and then(as i just have), and reminisce the old days. No other movie can do this. I was peter popper, i was jip travolta, i went to never never land with my chosen family. i'd have $200 in my back burner and i wax the lot! No worries!


Go see this movie for the gorgeous imagery of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, and treat yourself to a thoroughly eye-opening and relaxing experience. The music perfectly complements the footage, but never draws attention towards itself. Some commentators called the interview snippets with the artist a weak spot, but consider this: why would you expand on this in a movie, if you can read Andy's musings at length in his books, or attend one of his excellent lectures? This medium is much more suitable to show the ephemeral nature of the artist's works, and is used expertly in this respect.


This movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth my time.


A mixture of Alien and Ghost Busters?

Starts very promising, then slows down to almost boring.

LifeForce contains some awesome special effects they were able to make in the mid 80's. The story is intriguing, but becomes quite lack lustre in the end. It was rated R because of the nudeness, sex and gore. Mathilda May's ethereal and savage (naked) beauty is very apparent through out the whole movie. A bizarre movie and cost a lot by the time it was made.

This could have been a bigger classic with a better script, but unfortunately it wasn't a great hit, I think it actually flopped quite bad.

So, something went wrong with this one, but still, it's very entertaining.


Within the realm of Science Fiction, two particular themes consistently elicit interest, were initially explored in the literature of a pre-cinematic era, and have since been periodically revisited by filmmakers and writers alike, with varying degrees of success. The first theme, that of time travel, has held an unwavering fascination for fans of film, as well as the written word, most recently on the screen with yet another version of the H.G. Wells classic, `The Time Machine.' The second theme, which also manages to hold audiences in thrall, is that of invisibility, which sparks the imagination with it's seemingly endless and myriad possibilities. And this theme, too, has again become the basis for a film adapted from another H.G. Wells classic, `The Invisible Man,' the realization of which, here, is `Hollow Man,' directed by Paul Verhoeven, and starring Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue.

Sebastian Caine (Bacon) and his colleagues have for some time been conducting experiments for the U.S. Government, exploring the possibility and practicality of invisibility, which they have, at last, achieved in a number of the primates upon which they have tested their method. They have, in fact, progressed to the point that effecting the invisibility is assured; their only problem now is bringing the subject back to the original `visual' state of being. It's a problem, however, that Caine, after diligent effort and too many hours in the lab, has solved-- or so he thinks. And when the application of his theory on a live subject is successful, he decides to present the results to the board of directors, in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project.

At the last minute, though, Caine demurs, fearing that control of the project will be wrested from him before they can proceed to the next level-- the testing of a human subject. And he takes it upon himself to become that subject, securing the assistance of his research team by telling them that they've been given approval by the board to do so. But something goes wrong, and Caine becomes trapped in his cloak of invisibility; and as he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it's too late, it all begins to take a toll on Caine's mind. And suddenly, his fear of losing funding and control becomes inconsequential, as he finds himself facing the imminent danger of losing much more than that. Now there's a very real chance that he may lose everything-- Including himself.

Verhoeven has crafted what is initially an exciting, even thought provoking film; he establishes a good pace and uses the F/X at his disposal to great effect, though he does tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development. Anyone familiar with `The Invisible Man,' or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story, will know early on that Caine is not destined for happier times. Still, Verhoeven has a style of storytelling that is definitely going to capture the attention and engage his audience. But he seems bent on rushing toward the climax, and along the way he abandons any and all of the nuance that has made his film thus far successful, opting to enter into a final sequence that is nothing more than a mindless blood-and-gore fest that betrays his audience and everything he's worked for earlier in the film. Rather than seeking an intelligent resolution to Caine's suffering, and using some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it's inevitable conclusion, Verhoeven takes the low road, and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level, any meaning one could derive from the story dissolves like so many ashes in the wind, along with anything that would have made this a memorable film. And it's a shame, because Verhoeven has it at a higher level than much of what is offered in this genre, and he allows it to sink unnecessarily to one much lower.

Kevin Bacon does a good job of creating a character that is believable, if only on the surface, which seemingly serves Verhoeven's purposes perfectly. There's little depth to Bacon's portrayal, but it has more to do with his director's agenda than his own acting abilities. Verhoeven simply does not allow Bacon the time to develop Caine to any extent; the character is mainly a vessel around which Verhoeven can build his story, and toward that end, it works. The film would have been better served, however, had Verhoeven and Bacon collaborated more closely on at least developing a bond between Caine and the audience that would have prompted some emotional involvement on the viewers part, something that would have drawn them in a bit, rather than leaving them at the gate, as it were, as mere observers of an F/X laden extravaganza.

Elisabeth Shue comports herself well in the role of Linda McKay, Caine's willing accomplice in the ill-fated experiment, but it's basically a thankless part that offers little challenge, especially to an actor of Shue's caliber. The same can be said of Kim Dickens (so magnificent in the 2001 film, `Things Behind the Sun'). Her character, Sarah Kennedy, does little more than support the action and F/X. Both actors are capable of so much more, and deserve better than what they are given to work with here.

The supporting cast includes Josh Brolin (Matthew), Greg Grunberg (Carter), Joey Slotnick (Frank), Mary Randle (Janice) and William Devane (Dr. Kramer). Entertaining to a point, and even successful on a certain (low) level, `Hollow Man' is one of those films that leaves you contemplating what could have been. Like an annual fireworks display, it will give you some momentary thrills, but after awhile it'll begin to blend in with all the others you've seen, without anything special to set it apart. And it's too bad, because given the talent and abilities of those involved here, it could have been so much more. I rate this one 4/10.


I've read other hacks' reviews of this movie, and while it certainly isn't the best movie ever made in the sci-fi / horror genre, it isn't THAT bad if you accept it for what it is - low-budget, b-movie fare that (shall we say) 'borrows heavily' from the likes of 'Alien' (nasty extraterrestrial monster that cocoons its victims) 'Species' (gorgeous and confused 'space girl') and 'Incubus' (the beastie-breeding-with-captive-girls angle). This is one seriously cheesy movie, and the whole thing was obviously done on a shoestring budget, although the alien isn't too bad (I've seen far less convincing men-in-rubber-suits at any rate). None of the acting is Oscar material and the Isle Of Man doesn't really double for Boston Massachussetts very convincingly. The plot is fairly predictable too and the premise that an alien craft would travel squillions of miles and crash land smack bang in the middle of an all-girls college campus - thus conveniently providing a rich source of perfect breeding victims - is utterly laughable. However, the movie does have its suspenseful moments, there's a few helpings of nudity and semi-nudity and the film does feature one of the few movie appearances by the beautiful and tragic model / actress Kadamba Simmons (as the 'Space Girl') who, at the age of only 24, was murdered in London by her jealous boyfriend shortly after making this film.


I had the funny chance of seeing this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, four years ago. I must admit it wasn't as badly done as some other science fiction/horror movies of the time. The plot revolved around an astronaut that came back to earth with alien embryo's inside of him. Now the plot is quite weird, well if you can even call that a plot. (Seeing a space program run out of one building and an old pickup truck is drop-dead funny!) I'll admit it was horrible by today's standards (and 20 years ago)...but I can see myself 43 years ago watching and being charmed by this movie. It's not even close to the badness of Invasion of the Neptune Men, Manos: Hands of Fate or Future War.


If you like silly comedies like Airplane you'll love this movie! It's definitely in the style of Airplane and Scary Movie. A fun film! It has the strangest cast of characters all in the same movie. Michael Jackson, Evan Marriott, Joyce Giraurd, Stuart Pankin, Charlie Schlater and Eric Roberts. The special effects are hokey, but I think they're supposed to be since it's a silly comedy. There is apparently two versions of the film, one at Blockbuster and one on the official website: MissCastaway.com. The one on the website appears to be a preview release version signed by the director. There's some fun behind the scenes material filmed at Neverland with Michael Jackson as well. The movie was filmed in 2003 and says it's PG rated fun on the box.


There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.

But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.

FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.


I'm in a film class and i know that i don't know everything about film but truthfully this is one of the worst, stupidest, retarded and waste time, movies that i have ever seen and i saw NAPOLEAN DINAMITE. they are both equally terrible. Conrack is boring and nothing interesting even happens in the film its not really a heart warming story and Pat Conroy overcomes nothing! I'm not saying there should be fighting and crap blowing up but it would liven up this more than bland film. the kids they fond to act in this film may have been the real kids from yammacraux island they sounded stupid and couldn't act as as far as i am concerned this was a stupid idea for a book and an even worse idEa fOr a movie I don't know why this movie was even made, deviantly top five worst movies of all time.


I'm not going to lie and say I don't watch the show--I do. BUT it has a lot, and a lot of flaws. 1) The Boarding School is perfect. The drama is at a minimum. Everyone is so nice to each other, you know. Lets give that a reality check. Its IMPOSSIBLE that ANY school is perfect like PCA. Free laptops for everyone. Big dorm rooms. Mini fridges. If there was a school like that in real life, almost nobody there would be a virgin for one. Two, everyone there is so rich, and its weird how nobody has anything stolen yet. 2) Characters really unrealistic. First things first, who in they're right minds talk like they do. They talk like a perfect teenager would. Secondly, Logan Reese(Matthew Underwood) is an extremely rich boy 'hot' teenage boy. My question is, why isn't almost ever girl in that school all over him? He's rich and 'hot' now a days all those girls would be after him, even if he was a jerk. Also, Chase is the most stupidest person ever. He is this shy teenager who claims to not be in love with Zoey, and over-reacts to everything that involves Zoey. She must be BLIND not to see him in love with her.

Come on Nick. I know you can do better than THAT. Please..


I LOVE this movie! Beautifully funny and utterly believable characters. Each scene richer and more wonderful than the last. Every aspect of this movie is filled with wit and humour and love and depth. A complex and engrossing story, too. This movie is filled with love, humour, and intelligence. Totally great!


There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.


Words alone cannot describe the sheer beauty and power of this film.

Think 'Toy Story'. Now, think 'Toy Story', circa 1934. Now, imagine the animation looks as lifelike, as fluid. Think of the movie not as something adults and children can enjoy, but imagine it as a filme-noire.

Imagine trying to do something like that back in 1934. Somehow, 'The Mascot' delivers. In a story where toys come to life, and one of them is trying to deliver an orange to his sick owner, Starewicz delivers a level of animation completely unexpected. It's so fluid, you will wonder for a long time whether what you see is really stop-motion animation.

Comparing 'Toy Story' and 'The Mascot' is an excercise in futility, plot-wise: while 'Toy Story' is a children's story adults can enjoy, 'The Mascot' is a dark, chilling story aimed at adults. Meaning, NO, your kids won't like it. One bit.

Still, get it if you can. You might be able to find it along 'Vampyr' in DVD and LaserDisc. And prepare to be stunned at what Starewicz was able to do back in 1934 with a couple of puppets.


Disney might just be on to something here. First, they had 'Remember the Titans' with Denzel, a story based on truth involving sports and a small town in middle America. Now, with Quaid and The Rookie... yet another sports story based on truth.

Both movies move you to tears at times, and both make you smile and feel all warm after seeing them. My wife and I took in The Rookie and we expected it to be a great feel good type movie. We were not let down, when asked if we'd be buying this on DVD when it comes out, it was a no-brainer. Most definately.


(various spoilers follow)

Gene Kelly. Not Georges Guetary, who is sometimes criticized for being too young and un-French. Not Leslie Caron, who is sometimes criticized for her very green performance. Not even Oscar Levant, who more often than not annoys the dickens out of me.

No, it would definitely be Gene Kelly. There's something about his screen persona that's too ambitious and focused for him to be convincing as a penniless artist in Paris, content to put off facing the critics indefinitely, frolicking with little kids and old ladies and painting in the streets. That's what made him so effective in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and other movies where he played ambitious, focused characters. Jerry Mulligan is in some ways a cousin to Tommy Albright in BRIGADOON, another Lerner story with Kelly miscast as an American at loose ends who falls in love with a picturesque European place and an innocent female who embodies its virtues.

Except that Jerry isn't as likeable as even poor dazed Tommy. That's another galling thing about this film. Jerry is sometimes a cad to Milo, and even worse to Lise. When he first sees the latter at a club, he pulls a dirty trick to get her to dance with him. When she sits down again he pulls an even dirtier trick to get her phone number. When he calls her the next day she hangs up on him, which he takes as a cue to drop in at her workplace. And throughout all this it's obvious she wants NOTHING to do with him. When she starts laughing at his jokes in the perfume shop, it's about as believable as Milo's interest in his paintings. Sure he's good-looking and playful, but why should that sway her when she's got Henri, who seems like a gentleman to boot?

Admittedly it comes off so distasteful partly because of the actress. If a role like Lise was played by, say, Judy Garland, she would shower Jerry with indignant insults and glares. If she was played by Cyd Charisse, one would admire his guts. But when she's played by first-timer Leslie Caron she looks and acts like a shy, vulnerable teenager, and as a result Jerry just seems like a creep. And why DID they choose these other actors (though personally I'd rather they'd solved things by changing the lead) when the whole story hinges on the romance of these two young poor sweethearts disentangling themselves from their loveless commitments to older rich people? Not only is Gene Kelly a few years above Guetary and Foch, he's old enough to be Caron's father.

In short I think it all would have been improved by casting some young comedic-relief type dancer as Jerry, the kind that usually turned up in musical supporting roles...e.g. Ray MacDonald in GOOD NEWS or Bobby Van in SMALL TOWN GIRL. Maybe not them necessarily but someone LIKE them. Someone who could have chased Lise and made it seem harmlessly playful; someone who would have appeared genuinely happy living in that Chaplinesque hole-in-the-wall; someone whose humor and naivete would have contrasted better with Oscar Levant's sarcastic grumpiness. It probably also would have made the ballet seem less ponderous. And it might have provided a voice that could sing Gershwin better.

All this may give the impression that I don't like Gene Kelly. I do like him. He was terrific in most of his films, just not this one (well, and a few others). I don't despise AAIP itself, either; it has good points, like the art direction. And Leslie Caron, who despite her inexperience is rather charming, and really does look like she just stepped out of a painting. Georges Guetary does a fine job and his 'Stairway to Paradise' is my favorite number in the movie. Nina Foch is beautiful and touching and should have ended up with SOMEBODY. But not Jerry Mulligan. I wouldn't wish that on her.


'I haven't laughed this hard since granny got caught in the wringer,' says one of the potheads in this hilarious quasi-spoof of all those Val Lewton and George A. Romero walking-dead movies we have come to love (or loath, depending on your personal taste) through the years.

In this story, a young actor pair play a ghoulish prank on the rest of their troupe after, one spooky night, they visit a cemetery island. Their artistic director, Alan, pretends to bring the dead back to life by conducting a highly stylized ritual.

Way too much screen time is misspent; the amateur dialog includes lame witticisms, melodrama and other kinds of unnecessary filler commentaries (And can't Alan stop that irritating laughter... way too much!). Once the action kicks in (which comes close to the end of this film), it's worth the wait.

I saw this one on a late-night, local station television program that ran films very much like this one... only this one scared me at the age of 13... but then again, you might laugh your way through it, until the bitter end... ...which is probably the reason, nowadays, why very few people still wear striped hip-huggers.


I like CKY and Viva La Bam, so I couldn't resist this when I saw it for £1.99 in Gamestation. It is Bam Magera's debut scripted film, penned by himself and Brandon Dicimaillo, and stars the entire CKY crew (Ryan Dunn, Raab Himself, Rake Yohn, Jenn Rivell, Don Vito etc etc). Brandon also is in charge of the artistic direction - which is one of the film's greatest merits - its quite CKYish in its colour style - but also shows progression.

Basically it follows (very loosely) Ryan Dunn's break up with girlfriend Glauren (played by Jenn). Vilo (played by Bam, named after Vilo Valo by any chance?) and Falcone (Bran) play his best mates who reek havoc by doing various stunts.

Its a bit like the CKY films but with a linear storyline (which is very basic indeed) and poor acting. Its strange, the usually super charsmatic gang seem to have the life sucked out of them when they know what their meant to say next.

The acting and script is pretty appalling for the most part, but the second half of the film is much better than the first (90 mins is a stretch for the flick though), and there are a number of redeeming factors, such as Tony Hawk's cameo, Dicimaillo's sub plots such as 'The Futurstic Invention Awards' and 'The Diamond Bike', the soundtrack is also very strong (its not ALL cKy and HIM - in fact Bomfunk MC's steal the film in terms of its use of music). In the second half of the film the sense of fun is much more real - especially since Don Vito has a fairly prominent role in the latter part - and he seems to steal every scene he is in.

The film will appeal to those who like the CKY antics, but only because of the core material and not the filler or story line bullshit. Oh, and will someone tell Bam that skating montages, especially in films, is sooo 1998.

However, the best part of the package on the DVD is not the film - but the 40 mins 'Making Of' doc.

The last 20 minutes of the documentary deal with Raab Himself's alcholism and the crew's real feelings towards each other amazing candidly (as usual Bam comes across as a bit of a dick, especially towards Raab's drink problem and Ryan Dunn comes across as a really nice down to earth guy). The last ten mins of the documentary deal with a friend (who is an infrequent CKY member) trying to kick heroin whilst staying at the Magera household with the crew - and a caring unitary side of gang (espcially Ape and Ryan) really comes across - a startling gem in an otherwise dull DVD.

For £1.99 I'm very satisified - although I hope Bam stays to the improvised and short skits from now on.


As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.


this film takes you inside itself in the early minutes and holds you till the end. it has a very humane story and very good selected music. The acting of Moritz Bleibtreu (Giancarlo Amato) and Barnaby Metschurat (Gigi Amato) is satisfying. Recommended to people who get bored of action films and want to see a good movie.


This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.

Seeing 'Sailor Beware' again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing 'Fireman Save My Child', now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten.


The original 'Psycho' (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.

The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.

Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.

Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.

All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.

The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.

This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.

Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.

The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.


For quite a long time in my life, I either did not like this film, or I liked this film but not as much as many more. I watched it recently (at a sleepover, funnily enough) and I liked it more than I had done since I was under 6 or something. I now appreciate it more, as I do with a few other Disney classics that I have watched recently (including 'Sleeping Beauty' and 'Pinnochio' or however you spell it).

I now very much appreciate the animation, the clever 'Disney' plot turns, the humour from the mice, the emotions expressed and the plot. The animation is very well done, often it seems you are wherever the other characters are, watching them. The animation also does well portraying the styles of the backgrounds, including the town (which is shown twice briefly). Disney changes this from the original fairy tale in a surprisingly good way, injecting clever plot turns ,such as the mice making the clothes and the key part (usually I do not like Disney films very much if they are not that similar to the original story, but with this I am not overly bothered. I feel they made necessary changes to make this a good Disney film. Often I do not think Disney changed the book in a good way in some of their films).

You know the story already, Cinderella is a girl working for her horrible stepmother and stepsisters. She goes to a ball with the help of her fairy godmother and loses a glass slipper...

This is a film very much to be watched with other people. Immediate family is not good enough. To enjoy this, I recommend you watch it with friends (and immediate family, if you like. :-) ).

I recommend this to people who like Disney at least a little bit, people who like fairy tales and for people who like mice. Enjoy! :-)


Not a balanced point of view. The director shouldn't express her opinion as truth. The movie has some criticism of Fujimori but it always gives him and his family the last words. So few critics of Fujimori were provided that it seems the only reason they were included was to be able to say the movie provides both views. But that is not the case.

The movie barely shows one of the massacres that Fujimori is accused of. And it gives him credit for the masterminding the murdering of the MRTA insurgents that took the Japanese embassy. It is well documented that the CIA did the planning. There is even pictures of a well known CIA strategist on the site published by Caretas magazine and other newspapers.

The fact that such well known information was not used by the director gives us a few possible conclusions: the director is pro-Fujimori and purposely and falsely chooses to give the credit to him; the director does not want viewers to note that the CIA and Fujimori worked together; or it was just out of ignorance since the director is not Peruvian and was not present in Peru at the time the events occurred.

The explanation provided by other commentators, that Fujimori is still fairly popular in Peru, does not excuse the lack of accuracy and balanced explanations.

Also, the statistics provided in the movie for the actual support of Fujimori were the highest I have ever heard of. Most statistics by major poll agencies are much lower.

Another point to mention is that the intelligence that was key in the capture of the leader of Sendero and discover the secret network was done by a police force led by Ketin Vidal and he had complete autonomy from Fujimori and Montesinos.

The first government of Fujimori did experience an improvement in overall economic trends (GDP) but this improvement was financed by the privatization of several national industries with contracts that were not beneficial for the country in the long term. Also, the gap between rich an poor continued to increase during Fujimori's regime. In his second term the economy was suffering and there was nothing else to privatize and by the end of Fujimori's second term the economy was about to collapse.

In terms of investments in infrastructure of Fujimori's regime, they fallow the paternalistic pattern. They were created to raise support for Fujimori but were not meant to last long. These structures needed continued maintenance but Fujimori did not provide political power for the civilians in order to demand further investment. In fact, Fujimori's regime was able to destroy most forms of political organizing such as unions and grass-roots groups and the increase in informal unorganized labor was immense.

Finally, the director chose to spend most of the movie talking to Fujimori instead of citing the cases of massive corruption in favour of Fujimori (the Media, Business Owners, the Military, etc) that were so wide spread it was impossible that Fujimori was not aware of it.


I have not figured out what the chosen title has to do with the movie. This is another gathering of monsters just like the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Not exactly a masterful plot, but Universal needed to capitalize again.

Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) is either very ambitious or over the top in the ego department. He is working on the cure to keep Larry Talbot from turning into the Wolf Man. Somehow Count Dracula happens to drop by to get a fix on his vampirism. And rounding out the good doctor's experiments is the restoring of the Frankenstein monster's energy. Along the way, the kind hearted doctor's blood is tainted with that of Dracula.

John Carradine plays Dracula again. This time he is more convincing. Lon Chaney Jr. as usual is the soulful Wolf Man. Glenn Strange is the Frankenstein monster, who has very little to do this outing. Also with mentionable roles are Lionel Atwill and Martha O'Driscoll.


Pluses: Mary Boland is delightfully on edge as always (I never tire of her upper-crust zaniness, especially in 'The Women' and 'Pride and Prejudice'). W.C. Fields's brief role is fun, though the famous pool table scene stretches its welcome a bit because it seems to go on for ten minutes. The madcap antics of the film, typical of the period, are great. Also, a nod to Alison Skipworth's wonderfully grounded hotel mistress; I would love to see more of her (she reminds me of Marie Dressler, another personality worthy of high praise).

Minuses: Gracie Allen. An irritating, unfunny presence whose annoyance went unmatched until the rise of Adam Sandler. That near-falsetto nasalness tinged with an accent of unknown origin gets old in her very first scene. This is the first of the Burns-Allen films I have seen and while I (as a big classic comedy buff) try to experience at least one film with every major comedy star, this is definitely one team I will not be calling upon again. Her timing and interpretation of the material is totally off. A maddeningly mediocre talent.

The bottom line: An OK comedy, but the gags are few and far between. And at only an hour long, you can expect that this is not an A grade Hollywood comedy. Recommended only for Boland and Fields fans who want to see all of their work.


The Railway Children was on TV again this weekend, and I had forgotten how good it was.

If I have a criticism, it is that the episodic structure sometimes shows a little too clearly, there being little narrative flow from sequence to sequence. The charm and beauty of the film are such that this matters very little, however.

I won't revisit the comments of others, other than to add my vote for the final scene on the platform as being possibly the single most emotional scene in the history of British cinema: as a cynical old git passing through middle age rather too quickly I, too, find I cannot even think of that moment without being hit with a severe case of 'I've got something in my eye.' In fact, it's not just something in my eye, it moves things around inside me, too, with that beautiful happy pain we sometimes feel.

And Jenny Agutter was exquisitely beautiful in this film, standing with one foot in childhood and one in young womanhood, and bringing qualities of both to her portrayal of a girl having to grow up rather too quickly.

Plus a quick plaudit for Bernard Cribbins. Regarded mostly as a lightweight actor, he deftly created a Perks of great humanity.


I love this film. The noir imagery combined with Spillane's no nonsense character Mike Hammer works marvellously to create a mood and feel seldom found in low budget detective films of the early fifties. It may not be 'The Maltese Falcon' but this film makes it's own solid contribution to the genre. Spillane is often criticised for alleged misogyny etc, but his 'dames' are way above their male counterparts in terms of cunning and intelligence. Poor old Mike Hammer, as effectively played by Biff Elliott, is blinded by the beauty of the mysterious psychiatrist whom he meets when investigating the death of an army buddy. When the penny finally drops his face is a picture. Good to see that 50s censorship did not force the film makers to omit the famous last line. A bona fide low budget classic.


After you see Vertigo, then watch Bell, Book and Candle, made within months of each other.

My second favorite Kim Novak film, with Picnic, coming in as third.

All three performances are great, Vertigo, being the best, of all.

They came to my nowhere Kansas Prairie town, near by, at Salina, Kansas in the 50s, to film, Picnic.

Bell, Book and Candle's musical score, I believe is one of Alex North's. Perfect for this bit of comedy.

After Vertigo, Stewart and Novak, did this comedy, how amusing to note the dramatic contrast.

Worth your time, if you like Kim Novak. The Greta Garbo of my youth.


This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!


This series has a lot going for it with beautiful footage of the some of the most impressive underwater environments on this planet. Being a staggering five years in the making, one would be hard-pressed to expect any less. I did get the impression that some scenes from the first episode where repeated in the latter ones, which is naturally only a minor gripe.

David Attenborough is great as a narrator and comments are informative, leaving enough room for one's imagination, and well spaced out, so that viewers get plenty of time to reflect upon the breathtaking imagery. If you get the opportunity try not to watch a translated version of this series.

A definite must-see for anyone interested in the intricacies of our blue continents and easily the best documentary on this subject I've ever seen.


Frederick Forsyth's books are always so intricately plotted, with twists and turns, and usually a great surprise ending. This adaptation had none of that.

So much of what was great in the book (the history of Monk and the betrayed agents; the plot to influence the outcome of the Russian election) were completely missing in this adaptation. Instead, there's this completely new plot about bio-weapons that was a yawner.

Forsyth's protagonists always operated in the shadows, forever just slightly beyond the reach of the antagonists. The joys of his books have always been the machinations of carrying out their mission. This film resigned itself to gunfights and car chases early on.

Swayze's Monk might as well have hung a sign around his neck saying 'I AM A SECRET AGENT' for all the attention that he called to himself during the film. And with all of that attention, the amount of time that it took the bad guys to catch up to him was surprising.

Granted there was some energy to this film, which is why I'm giving it a '3' instead of a '1'. It was also great to see some underutilized pros like Patrick Bergin, Ben Cross, Michael York, and Barry Morse.

I hope that someday, someone will once again do justice to a Forsyth film adaptation like 'Day of the Jackal' did.


endearing tale........ voted ten against all averages for my age and sex... not all that much comedy (compared to a i almost wet myself movie) although funny enough. not a fan of musicals at all so probably a little too much for me, but they do give you time to grab a drink or soda without missing anything important. maybe a fifties version of when harry met sally? Ahab no not really but if that is in your top ten like it is mine you will like this movie. really it just leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling, reminding you of what romance could and should be like, something to shoot for. my summary describes it best in very few words..... quite charming


Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted.


Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.

Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.

So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.


the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.


Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake.


From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.

Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.

The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.

It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.

Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.

Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.

Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.


I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.

Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.

Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10.


Prot (Kevin Spacey) is a mental hospital patient who claims to be native to a distant planet called K-PAX. His psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) tries to help him, all the while trying to understand Prot and find out if he is really from K-PAX.

This movie doesn't really fall into any particular genre. One big part of K-PAX is drama/ science-fiction, another part fantasy, plus, add to that a dash of comedy and you begin to get what K-PAX is all about. The story (as you see above) isn't too complicated or deep, but it still offers some good twists and turns of the plot that may still surprise you as they did me. No special effects or graphics accompany this movie, and there's no need to have them, the music in the film is great however. A techno soundtrack along with a terrific piano piece makes K-PAX sound sci-fi and makes certain scenes intriguing.

Kevin Spacey is the heart of the movie and plays a very convincing alien (Prot) from the planet K-PAX, emotional with great facial expressions, Spacey does a fine job in the lead role. Jeff Bridges is Dr. Powell, that aids and attempts to understand Prot. Bridges is also excellent in his part. Bridges and Spacey fit together very well and they should, after all, they've both had a lot of experience. The wife of Dr. Powell is Rachel Powell, played by Mary McCormack. McCormack plays her part well, showing the frustration from having her husband gone and so dedicated to his patient. Alfe Woodard plays Dr. Powell's coworker Claudia Villars, we don't really see Claudia too much, but overall she puts in an alright performance.

K-PAX is rated PG-13 for 'a sequence of violent images, and brief language and sensuality', and that covers it. As far as 'violent images' go, we don't see too much. A few people that have quite a bit of blood on them, but that's all. Language is as follows: 1 'f' word (wow, only one!), 11 's' words, and a few uses of the Lord's name in vain. Not too bad really. The 'sensuality' part is just from when Prot explains to Dr. Powell how reproduction works on K-PAX, nothing terrible, just something about it feels like 'having your nuts in a vice.' Not too bad on the content level for a PG-13 movie, it could have been a lot worse.

In conclusion, K-PAX is not a bad movie. It won't stun you, but it is enjoyable and kind of fun to watch. It has some funny parts, sad parts, really sad parts, and, well you know what I mean. It's a story of a mental hospital patient, what do you expect? All in all a good rent for those of you looking for a good drama that you can kick back and relax to, K-PAX is a well done movie.

Bonus! If you've seen this movie already, like it, and are thinking about getting the DVD, I would highly recommend it. It has loads of extras to look through, and even an alternate ending and deleted scenes. 8/10


Since this picture is classified a 'pure entertainment' work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.


I spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.

Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.

The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish 'quarters', and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a 'Cockney' accent was never heard.

That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.

Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-)


Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters.

People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.

To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort.

Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, 'Umbrellas') often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate.


All of the people reviewing this film, and probably many professional film reviewers, just don't get it. This film was made with matting sequences and art techniques quite like the works of the great Czech filmmaker, Karel Zeman. If you want to know what I'm talking about, I suggest you get any of Zeman's films, such as The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, Baron Munchausen, Journey to the Beginning of Time, or On The Comet. If you are unable to locate a film, then read the reviews in AMG. They will explain the processes used. If one were to look at Zeman's work and try to compare it to any of the other sci/fi fantasy films of the time, viewers probably wouldn't have gotten it then either. It is unfair to compare either of these filmmakers' styles to the standard technologies of the day, because both Zemen and Hines 'do not compute'. They have a style that is unique to them and should be judged for their creativity only. If you look at this film from a perspective where you KNOW that he intentionally tried to create a pastiche collage of mattes mixed with live action, you could easily come to the conclusion that he did a masterful job. It isn't easy making a bunch of computer cutouts flow. I thought that the creatures were also quite good, also considering how they were made. Hines took a great gamble, and I think his film will not be fairly judged for years to come. Someone promoting the film should have tipped the audience off as to what they would be seeing, rather than let them blindly go into the theater expecting the usual CG work. Regarding the actors, I think Hines also took a page from Zemen's book, in that many of Zemen's actors were somewhat expressionless at first, but became much more engaging as the film and action went on. It is totally refreshing to me to have this movie in my library. I will watch it for years to come, all three great hours of it.


There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.


My children watch the show everyday that its on. Its a great program for younger children. However they need to stop showing re-runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of Rooney's and Deedee's YELLOW TEETH. Moe is the only Doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 don't ever brush their teeth? Does the show ever make its way to the United States and if so where can we find its schedule at. And one other thing if we might be able to add. Moe you need to stop hiding so much. Sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope? What does that signify? other then getting wet all the time. They need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. Kids loose interest that way.


You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.

Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.

The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying 'Just kidding.'

But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.

It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.

Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself.


The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared


OK, I admit that I still associate Sophie Marceau with La Boum. That was the main reason I went to see this film. But it was so boring, that I nearly felt asleep. Sorry, but her talents as actress are not very convincing. Furthermore, this film was presented as having outstanding special effects and CGI. Yeah, for a B-Movie it is not that bad. After having seen her in 'Marquise' some years ago (also a very crappy film), I thought that she would play more convincingly. But La Boum (and may be the James Bond 'the world is not enough') seem to be the only good films with her. Is it her 'talent', does she have a bad taste when choosing her films or simply bad luck ?


This movie really surprised me. I had my doubts about it at first but the movie got better and better for each minute.

It is maybe not for the action seeking audience but for those that like an explicit portrait of a very strange criminal, man, lover and husband. If you're not a fan of bad language or sexual content this really is not for you.

The storyline is somewhat hard to follow sometimes, but in the end I think it made everything better. The ending was unexpected since you were almost fouled to think it would end otherwise.

As for the acting I think it was good. It will not be up for an Oscar award for long but it at least caught my eye. Gil Bellows portrait of a prison man is not always perfect but it is very entertaining. Shaun Parkes portrait of Bellows prison mate Clinique is great and extremely powerful. On the downside I think I will put Esai Morales portrait of Markie.

Take my advice and watch this movie, either you will love it or dislike it!


First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.

Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie


This last Dutch speaking film of Verhooven made me laugh good. As a film buff looking for all the small details and cross references etc in any movie I can assure anyone interested in film art that this piece amuses all the senses. I haven't read Gerard Reves book, on which the film is based, but I still believe we get a candid picture of a somewhat self-conceited poet/writer who gets his (in a way - no spoiling here). An anti-hero surrounded by characters that have their ambiguous intentions, as has he. All this in a superbly packaged cinematography, Paul Verhopven manages to turn the otherwise rather cute 'gesellich(?)' Dutch locations into a suspenseful film-noir setting, impressive work!


I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.

Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.


I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others 'oh my God whats this'.There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this.


Following their daughter's brutal murder,Julie and Allen escape the city to find solace and grieve in a solitary cabin on a remote mountain.Allen's intentions are good,he wants his wife to get out of her depression by resuming her photography.Julie stumbles across an ancient prison and sees the perfect creepy,decaying setting for her photography.But when the photos are developed they are full of dead people-and Allen quickly discovers the tragic history of suicide in their new mountain.'Dark Remains' is a pretty decent indie horror flick.It offers some genuine scares and plenty of tension.The acting is fairly good and the cinematography is great.7 out of 10.


exquisite!! in simple words... both Aparna Sen and Konkona Sen seem to understand each other quite well or maybe they both are just too good.this might just be her best performance as an actor and Aparna's best as a director. yeah maybe better than Mr and Mrs Iyer. Konkona plays the role of a schizophrenic. Shabana Azmi plays the role of Anjali,Mithi's(Konkona Sen's) elder sister. Shabana Azmi made the best out of Anjali's character for she had to play a strong,responsible,arrogant role of an elder sister who had the full responsibility of her family. Aparna Sen has beautifully crafted Anjali's character,a strong woman who had to sacrifice her personal life,her love for her family.

Mithi's behavior was'not juvenile at all,for you can expect this from most of Indian directors for this role.looks like a lot of research has been done to understand the role of Mithi,a schizophrenic. When at times Mithi is a normal,sweet college going girl,she also scares you when she is shown ill..both the sides have been beautifully judged and played..believe me it at times reminds you of the girl in Exorcist..not that scary though.. Overall..Marvellous piece of work by Aparna Sen,Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi...


We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.

The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back.


If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.

Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.

The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise  following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous  but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.

Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell  prominently featured on the DVD cover  appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.

For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.


I am Anthony Park, Glenn Park is my father. First off I want to say that the story behind this movie and the creation of the Amber Alert system is a good one. However the movie itself was poorly made and the acting was terrible. The major problem I had with the movie involved the second half with Nichole Timmons and father Glenn Park. The events surrounding that part of the story were not entirely correct. My father was suffering from psychological disorders at the time and picked up Nichole without any intent to harm her at all. He loved her like a daughter and was under the mindset that he was rescuing her from some sort of harm or neglect that he likely believed was coming from her mother who paid little attention to her over the 3 plus years that my father took care of her and summarily raised her so her mother could frolic about. The movie depicted my father in a manner that he was going to harm her in some way shape or form. The funny thing is that Nichole had spent many nights sometimes consecutively at my fathers place while Sharon would be working or doing whatever she was doing. The reason that my father was originally thought to be violent was because he had items that could be conceived to be weapons on his truck. My father was a landscaper. The items they deemed to be weapons were landscaping tools that he kept in his truck all the time for work. My recommendation is take this movie with a grain of salt, it is a good story and based on true events however the details of the movie (at least the Nichole Timmons - Glenn Park portion) are largely inaccurate and depict the failure of the director to discover the truth in telling the story. The funny thing is, that if the director would have interviewed any of Sharon's friends who knew the situation they would have stated exactly what I have posted here.


This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with this one.


Jon Cryer reprises his role as a neurotic guy in Two and a Half Men, which he perfected in this series. He longs to have a good relationship with a girl like his coworker has developed, and the tet-a-tet between him and his partner's girlfriend's best friend are pretty funny. Then they realize that they're attracted to each other and start dating. In one of the funniest lines on TV EVER -- I think in the final episode -- he and his partner are discussing that he wants to propose to the girl.

His partner prepares him for the moment by suggesting: 'What's the worst that can happen? She says no.'

Armed with newfound optimism, he proposes to his date over dinner. To which she replies,

'GOD, no!'

I laughed so hard I cried.


If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.

There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.

Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.

As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in 'Santa Fe Trail', both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's 'Little Big Man'. Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.

The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - 'You take glory with you when it's your time to go'.


This season lacked real oomf, but, as far as setting up stories to get us in the mood again, season 6 is without highlights and spontaneity.

This season lacked its usual Sopranos style, and if you cut out all the garbage that was filled in each and every episode this season, you probably would have had 6 episodes worth of real stories.

Side stories like Pauly's mom, is she or isn't she? was boring and had no purpose other than further exploration of his character. I would have like to have seen Bobby express his anger more at Pauly in that carnival episode, but to no avail.

And that's just it! These side stories had no real purpose, and lack finishing. If they are going to finish off these stories in the next 6 episodes, I'd rather not watch it, because, its not really worth seeing.

Disappointing is to nice a word to say about this season and its finale.


Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David 'Hot Pants' Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox  it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS!

Crap. Crap. Crap.


I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a 'documentary.' If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11!


Richard Farnsworth is one of my favorite actors. He usually gives solid performances, such as in The Straight Story, and The Grey Fox. He also does fairly well here, but the rest of the film suffers from a low budget, poor writing, and so-so photography. The Miller-Movie formula gives it a 4. Richard gets a 5.


Well... Vivah is quite a good, but typical Sooraj Barjatya's movie. It shows different aspects of Indian families, wedding ceremonies, etc. The movie is more than good, but not extremely good.

The big plus point of the movie is direction, music and Shahid and Amrita's acting (especially the last scene). The movie starts with a common factor of Indian movie--- A girl being disliked by her step-mother. Story is the movie is a bit common, but it is good, good enough to make the movie a blockbuster.

Minus point is common story of Bollywood movie. Overall I would say it is two times must watch movie, if you want to see typical Indian family values and of-course love!


This movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really 'kept it real' and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.


If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.


I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.

I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad/horrible movie.

7/10