What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.

I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.

As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them 'mailed' their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.

I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.

The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots 'conclusion' or 'answer' at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the 'meaning of life' is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.

No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.

****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous 'question' as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...

YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM.


Ah, I loved this movie. I think it had it all. It made me laugh out loud over a dozen of times. Yes, I am a girl, so I'm writing this from a girl's perspective. I think it's a shame it only scored 5.2 in rating. Too many guys voting? It was far above other romantic comedies. Just because I'm female I don't enjoy all chic flicks, on the contrary I prefer other genres. Romantic comedies tend to be shallow and not as funny as they meant to be. But like I said, this movie had it all, almost, in my opinion. Great script, good one-liners, fine acting. Although Eva Longoria Parker's character reminded very much of Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives, but so what? It was awesome. I will keep this film for rainy days, days when I feel low and need a few laughs.


Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...

De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in 'Marnie' .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory 'conversations with a serial killer' in the 'silence of the lamb' tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right.


Add pure humor + quick and unique sentences + sex + unfaith sex! + love + lies + dark deadly thoughts + secret plans + fun + black humor + sex!.. again! + black dresses! (needed for the unlimited funerals!) = Eglimata!!! Or in English, Crimes!! Our Heroes are two married couples, their relatives, their friends and neighbors. There is Soso and Alekos and Flora and Achilleas, two married couples who have everything but not real love! Flora is the mistress of Alekos, and when Soso finds what's going on, she is planning with her best friend Pepi to kill Alekos and look like an accident! Many plans were made but everyone else dies except Alekos! Achilleas find's out that he has a sister who is a Hooker and tries to put her in the right road..Korina is a temptation to mens but her tries to get married all goes wrong, since when they learn her past, freaks and leave and she ends up marrying a rich farm man. As for the other roles they are like they are from Cartoons! Grandpa Aristidis which fakes that he is paralyzed, Machi is his nurse who is secretly marry to Aristidis for his fortune, Johny, son of Machi, who has it OK with everybody to have all the benefits, Michalakis who has only one purpose in life.. to suicide, but he is unable to do it so he is desperate! Every time, I see the replays and every time when it finishes I miss it.. One of my favorite All time classics...


Hobgoblins... what a concept. Rick Sloan was a master with this film. He had the brilliance to produce a film with actors that couldn't act. On top of that, he chose to write a script based on some sort of bad acid trip gone serriously wrong. Put it together, you end up with a film that sucks more than a warehouse filled with suction cups and vaccum cleaners. This movie was very painful. The pain it caused is about equal to the pain caused by having your genitals carved out with a spoon, and then having the entire wound covered with salt and Hydrochloric acid.


As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.

The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters  all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people  rather than of good and bad people  something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies  Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault  who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. 'It's a wedding, not a celebration!' is just one of their many timeless 'pearls of wisdom' which seems to follow one through life :-).

20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television  and apparently not with a great deal of money  in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors  many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show  this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film.


This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his 'foolish' wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as 'the man you love to hate.' He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.


As is often the case, films about self-loathing characters do not usually make for good drama. 'Downloading Nancy' is no exception. It's supposedly based on a true story about a woman who's murdered at her own request by someone she meets over the internet.

The protagonist is Nancy (Maria Bello) who is married to Albert (Rufus Sewell). Albert is a successful software developer who has developed a golf game which his company has successfully marketed to various bars and bar/restaurants. Unlike most human beings, Albert has virtually no positive attributes (except for his ability to be successful in the business world). Throughout the film, Albert has a grim and dour expression on his face. He has no sympathy for his wife with all her emotional problems and resorts to patronizing prostitutes. When his wife asks for sex, he punishes her by masturbating in her presence instead.

Nancy is equally one-note as a character. Not only has she had a loveless 15 year marriage but was sexually abused by her uncle when she was growing up (thankfully there are no flashbacks of that back story in the film). Her self-loathing takes the form of self-mutilation and a result, she's forced into therapy. However, she has such contempt for her therapist that no progress can be made.

Finally, Nancy is so depressed that she contacts Louis over the internet. He's sort of a sadomasochistic gigolo, who has sex with women for money while inflicting massive amounts of pain to boot. It's revealed that Louis has two children but no longer sees them (the children's mother no longer wants anything to do with him).

Nancy's plan is to first have painful sex with Louis and then have him kill her. There's a particularly unpleasant scene where Louis has sex with Nancy while slashing her vaginal area with a broken piece of glass. These scenes are shown as flashbacks after Louis pays a visit to Albert who ties him up and strikes him with a golf club. It seems that Louis has a two-fold plan in going to see Albert: 1) berate him for his treatment of Nancy and 2) enjoy the beating he receives. It takes awhile before Louis will reveal Nancy's fatefirst, he forces Albert to do him the favor of taking his dog to a relative so someone will care for it in the future. Nancy's fate of course is that Louis finally ended up choking her to death (but showed some hesitation first as he made it clear that he had some 'feelings' for her). We soon learn that Louis is imprisoned for life for Nancy's murder.

What exactly are we to take away from a film such as Downloading Nancy? Are we supposed to feel sorry for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence? Is that the main point of the film? Is sympathy for Nancy actually warranted? I don't think so. The film's writers create a straw man in the character of Albertsomeone who is so cut off from his emotions that he is the one that is held responsible for Nancy's decline. But are people so one-dimensional in real life? I think not. They have the repulsive Louis, a man who makes a living by inflicting pain, come over and berate Albert for neglecting Nancy. Furthermore, his expressions of love towards Nancy (before he kills her), is supposed to show his 'sensitive side'.

In the end, it matters little whether the filmmakers have defined where their sympathies lie with the various characters in the film. They are so bent on titillating their audience with scenes of gratuitous violence, that Downloading Nancy becomes nothing more than an exercise in poor taste and soft pornography.


Dreyfuss plays a mob boss who lost his mind, but now he's 'fixed.' Lane is his girl who's been messing around with his Number One (Goldblum), who's supposed to have something going with Lane's sister (Barkin).

With what anyone could consider an all-star supporting cast (Burt Reynolds, Gabriel Byrne, Kyle MacLachlan and even an appearance by Richard Pryor) can't help this plot, as Dreyfuss proves he's not 'fixed' and tries to kill just about everyone in sight.

You know, it's not like you didn't know what was coming. The first ten minutes were nothing but guys trying to tell Goldblum what was in store for him when Dreyfuss gets out, but I'll save you all the trouble: skip this movie.

The actual reason I picked this movie is because I've been on a Diane Lane kick lately and have been trying to see all her movies. The real let-down for me wasn't just the terrible plot, but also the fact that she doesn't show up until the last fifteen minutes of the movie (although we hear about her all through the movie). Even being a fan of over half of the cast can't help me enjoy this film. The parts where the suspense was supposed to mount found me laughing at what was actually going on.

3 out of 10 stars.


Pete's Meteor. I seen this referred to as 'authentic' and a 'gem.' I caught this movie on a Saturday afternoon. I kinda wished that I didn't.

Apparently this was noted as being Mike Myers' first dramatic role. Unfortunately it had to be this movie. The first thing you'll notice that Pete's Meteor suffers from is a complete lack of plot. Or rather, a bunch of little subplots that aren't really connected and don't go anywhere. Young orphan Mickey lives with his younger brother and sister with their grandmother. A meteorite lands in their garden and is eventually collected by a scientist named Hugh. Despite the title of the movie, Mickey is the one who lays claim to the meteor, and the 'storyline' actually has little to do with the meteor in any shape or form. From here on out, several other characters and subplots are introduced. But like I said before, they don't really go anywhere.

Things go from cute family movie to dark thriller pretty fast, when Pete (Mike Myers) is introduced and starts to play a role. Micky blames him for the death of his parents, though we're never really told what happened or why. Hugh has romance problems because his girlfriend can't get past his cosmic fascination. And Pete's drug-related past starts to catch up with him and temporarily draws his own girlfriend and the rest of the cast into the mix when shady characters start trying to kill him. This would seem to be the main plot, until you realize it doesn't even have a role until halfway through the film, making everything else feel like pointless filler. Hugh's girl problems, Mickey's bad behavior, the meteor...what on EARTH do they have to do with this? Not much.

So the 'plot' is disjointed and half of it is pointless. But a good cast of characters can save it, right? Keyword: good. The majority of characters are terribly unlikable people, most of which you'd like to see die horribly. At least, I know I would. Despite the title, Mickey seems to be the main character, which is a really bad move once you see him in action. He is one of the WORST little kids I've seen in a movie, with an extremely bad attitude problem. He 'borrows' a car, harasses and talks trash to Hugh (an adult) for taking the meteor, actually attempts burn the man's house down when he doesn't get his way, and even tries to stab Pete with a knife. You'd think a kid like this is on his way to the jail house. Unfortunately, one of the worst things about this movie is that Mickey never gets what's coming to him. I'm not sure at what point you're supposed to be sympathizing with his character, because he's always a nasty little brat. He's the ringleader for his brother and sister, so they predictably end up taking and backseat and just following whatever he does. Amazingly, they're pushed back so far that I can't even remember their names. They might as well not even be there.

Their grandmother is pretty much a borderline alcoholic. She tends to be just as nasty to Hugh as Mickey, and likes to push people out of her house and give them evil glares when she's not chugging down liquor bottles and drinking herself silly. Pretty ridiculous when you take into account that she's supposed to be taking care of three children. Her issues with alcohol are never really addressed, though she does collapse from time to time in the movie.

Hugh is one of the few likable characters in the movie, but that's only because he's the punching bag for the majority of characters and takes their mess without giving it back. The kids treat him nastily but he always comes back and tries to teach them and do nice things with them. He's got a taxi driver girlfriend who seems to take every aspect of his life as a scientist as a personal offense, attempting to leave him several times in the movie when he goes off into his cosmic lingo or does something to prove that he isn't exactly on the same wavelength as the rest of the characters (thankfully).

Then there's Mike Myers as Pete. Pete, despite having the only solid purpose and plot in the movie, is extremely underused and doesn't play any kind of role until the second half. It's unfortunate that Myers got stuck in such a position for a dramatic role. Even when Pete is getting screen time, half of it is just Myers running through dark alleys and hiding in small corners. And even though he was the only real point to this movie, when his plot line brings the movie to a close, it's a strange, unfulfilling conclusion that has all the characters laughing on a good note with a quick and strange explanation behind the title of the movie, making you wonder if they were just performing in the movie you were just watching.

The only thing worth seeing in Pete's meteor is Mike Myers' role as Pete, and that's if you can wade through this disjointed mess long enough without lashing out at another human being due to the extremely unlikable characters and nonexistent plot line. No sir, I didn't like this one at all.


This is one of the few movies I watched twice in the theatre. I really love this movie for its atmosphere and its telling of the life of tragic hero Esteban Trueba. He makes so many mistakes but gets a chance for redemption. Isn't this a rather consoling thought?

When I watched it for the first time, I thought that after the won election, the movie would be over - I didn't know the book. So boy was I wrong when the dramatic climax was still to come! I was literally swept away by the sheer power of the last half hour of the film.

Many people here utterly dislike this movie. I cannot understand that one single bit. Maybe those who read the book first are - as often with screen adaptations of novels - simply disappointed that so many things have remained untold, unseen, unexplained. But as a movie telling a touching story - the story of a family, the rise and fall of a man, the deep compassion of a woman, the strength of love and the insanity of hate (and conservatism) - this movie is simply splendid! Furthermore, the soundtrack is incredibly good and the cast is wonderful as well - especially Winona Ryder and Jeremy Irons.

So definitely one of those films that cinema was invented for!


I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, 'Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights' which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.


The movie is not as funny as the director's preceding (and only other) movie, Shanghai Noon. Showtime did have its moments, but it did not satisfy me. Why it needed to be so foulmouthed, I don't know, but I give Showtime **/****


Though it's a Christmas movie, 'Christmas in Connecticut' could have been done any time of year, as it's the story of a soldier who spends what is to be an idyllic time with a Martha Stewart type. That's what he thinks. In reality, the lady in question, portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck, has a popular magazine column about life on a farm with her husband and baby. She has no farm, no husband, and no baby, nor are the many recipes she publishes hers. They belong to the restaurant owner nearby. When her no-nonsense editor, Sydney Greenstreet, insists that she entertain soldier Dennis Morgan, she enlists the aid of her boyfriend to use his farm, and she transports herself and the restaurateur there. There's even a baby...well, actually, there's more than one. Chaos ensues, and the charade becomes increasingly difficult to play out, especially when Stanwyck falls in love with Morgan.

This is such a wonderful movie, and even if you're gravely depressed, 'Christmas in Connecticut' can lift you right out of it. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as the career woman turned homemaker. Despite not being as flashy as Crawford or Davis, she was nevertheless able to do what any role called for - she could be cheap, elegant, warm, nasty, cold, and/or sexy and she makes it look easy. On top of that, she is always attractive and alluring. Dennis Morgan is a handsome and charming solider; as an added bonus, he gets to use his Irish tenor. Fiancé Reginald Gardner is all business, and you can tell he's not quite right for Stanwyck. S.Z. Sakall as the fake uncle/real chef is hilarious, especially as he prays Stanwyck can flip a pancake before an audience.

I can imagine the impact this delightful film had at the tail end of World War II. It must have been a real beacon for the better times to come.


This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers 'San Pedro Beach Bums'.

My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a 'walk'. The end result was straight out of Monty Python's 'Ministry of Silly Walks' sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.

And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left 'The View'. As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.

Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.


yeah right. Sammo Hung already acted in the main role in 1983's 'Zu Warrios from the Magic Mountain'. Now, 2001, he does it again with 'Zu Warriors'. But this time, he finally does it right. You seldom see him in wuxia, more often in classic eastern or crime slapstick. But this role simply does fit him! The ancient Chinese legend about zu mountain is not often represented in movies (as far as I know about movies translated for the west). Although, the legend contains a vast of interesting stories and possibilities. Straight said: you haven't seen a story alike yet in a modern movie! And that makes it so great! And wow: all the colors plus the enormously deep, right-into-the-heart going story makes you fall for this movie in an instant. The first time I watched it, I had to watch it again instantly, and I did. OK true, I didn't understand all of it the first time. But that makes it only better! You know, you didn't understand all of it, because there is so much spice in it! Therefor it is a pleasure for one self to watch it over and over again. And yeah, it grows deeper in your heart, the more often you watch it.

Summary: A story to love, characters you cry with, and truly: a movie you never forget! -- Editors note: well, I think I must watch it right now again :D


The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his 'friends') really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.


What a truly moronic movie, all I can say is the writer must be very fond of magic mushrooms and LSD because this must be the result of one of his 'trips'.

You follow the whole movie thinking alright this is very weird but hey I'm sure at the end there will be a perfectly good explanation for all of this... Only to be disappointed to find erm no there's no explanation at all and the twist at the end makes it even more confusing. At the end of the movie you'll probably have the same facial expression as if you were standing in a Que paying for you groceries and the merchant told you, that'll be 11.95 please and proceeded to elbow you in the balls for no apparent reason. There are so many factors in this movie that go unexplained and I think it leaves it to the imagination of the viewer in an entirely bizarre way. Don't get me wrong I like weird movies, 'The Cell' could easily be described as weird and twisted but in my eyes it's a brilliant movie (despite casting J-Lo who I dislike to the maximum even that didn't manage to sway my opinion). This isn't one of those movies, and I think you should take in to consideration the characters of those who praise this movie. I can tell you they are probably the sort of people that would go to an art exhibition, see a splat of pigeon excrement on a white board and say 'Oooooh what a masterpiece, the artist has truly found a unique way to portray eternity' when in actual fact all it is, is bird excrement on a board.

Keep that last bit in mind when watching this movie,

Thanks for reading!


I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.

It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.

Excellent film.


Stanley Kramer directs an action thriller and leaves out two key things: action and thrills. THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE features Gene Hackman as a convict sprung from prison in order to perform some mysterious task. Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, and Eli Wallach are his operatives --- they presumably work for the government, but that, like most of the movie's plot line, is never made clear. Hackman asks a lot of questions that NEVER get answered so the film goes absolutely nowhere. While it strives to be like NIGHT MOVES and THE PARALLAX VIEW, THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE mixes up ambiguity and mystery with confusion and boredom. The film is extremely well photographed but even that works against it. Kramer's direction is devoid of any style. It's a very sunny movie!

The acting is fine with Hackman proving he's pretty much incapable of being bad. Widmark and Wallach are suitably nasty and Albert is well cast as Widmark's cruel lackey. Even the usually obnoxious Mickey Rooney is pretty good as Hackman's sidekick. One oddity however is the casting of Candice Bergen as Hackman's wife. We're told she's done time in prison and she seems to be trying to put on some sort of southern twang. Kramer's idea of making her appear to be trailer trash is to have her wear an ugly brown wig. It's a role better suited for the likes of Valerie Perrine or Susan Tyrell.


I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values.

Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?


In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.

Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a 'midquel', as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.

The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a 'second home country', be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.

Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: 'The Beatles are much better than us!'), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).

Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid.


This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say 'welcome' when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.


This was one of the slowest movies I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. After the introduction where we are given the backstory of 'something' killing a couple people in a farm house, We are introduced to a white looser family that is moving to a farm - AND NOTHING HAPPENS for a looooong time. Then they meet this drifter who helps out on the farm AND NOTHING HAPPENS again for a very long time. Then FINALLY the girl of the family has some plotergeist stuff happens. Then some more happens, the drifter guy goes nuts and the movie ends. In between its all about how this family had to move out becuz the girl got in some trouble back home and they have no money and its done SO POORLY that I could care less about these pathetic people. I cannot believe I actually went to the theatres to see this! Not only did this movie suck, but some a$$hole answered his cell phone, dumb morons were making noise AND the movie sucked. THATS WHY THEATERS SUCK - Bad movies, overpriced crappy food, and idiots in the theatre, I'm staying home and watching DVDs from now on, at least I could smoke if I was at home while watching this stupid movie. Stay home and bake some pie rather than going to a theatre to see this piece of typical crap. Dumb stupid crap.


When I read the reviews of Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, I thought, 'Huh?'. It was THAT confusing. To be sure, I went to watch the film and what do you know? It's a remake of 'The Wedding Singer'. Several scenes have been changed to suit the whole essence of Indianness, but the rest of it is a direct lift from the 1998 Hollywood hit. Bollywood is no stranger to remakes, but this is one so poor that it pains me just to watch it. I groaned so much watching this and I realized I wasn't the only one doing so! One guy actually walked out of the theater and never came back! Salman Khan should seriously stop doing comedy roles. He shrieks and whines too much. Why can't he just take it easy? He doesn't do justice to the role originally acted out by Adam Sandler. He doesn't have Sandler's sense of comic timing. Rani is a wonderful actress and one of my favorites, but she's no Drew Barrymore either. The scene where she stands in front of a mirror practicing to say her new surname ('Hi, I'm Mrs Pugalia') doesn't match up to Barrymore's version ('Hi, I'm Mrs Julia Gulia'). I felt embarrassed watching that scene, even though I had loved the original. The music is not too bad. It's probably the only saving grace of this otherwise horrible film! Avoid this at all cost!


Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. 'Small morality' storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting 'small morality' content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.


This is a FANTASTIC film. Hána is a very old guy with a very young heart. He knows how to live his live fully everyday by teaming up with his friend making pranks on just about everything, even his own death. While his wife can't deal with his 'irresponsible' behavior, she also knows that it's exactly why she loves her husband for almost half century. I would love to hang out with this old guy because he knows how to enjoy live and never fear of death. He is joyful, witty, mischievous, and never boring. Vlastimil Brodský brilliantly played Hána at the age of 79. Every look from his eyes and every move from his aging muscles deliver so much about the character to the audience. This is a film that leaves a big smile on my face afterwards, and it makes me look at my own live a little closer. Tomorrow I am gonna go and buy myself a mansion and have some fun. If Hána can, so can I. But I think I will skip the smoking part.


I am fully aware there is no statistical data that readily supports the correlation between video games and real life violence. The movie is false and phony because it is in complete contradiction of itself, which is what I tried to emphasize in my original review. The movie fails, not necessarily because I really do think these kids were influenced by video games, but because the movie sets it up as 'random' and doesn't follow through. Let me clarify. In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, you can see her claims about the police and being controlled by radio waves are ridiculous, yet she is so troubled, she really believes them to be true. The viewer can make the distinction however. In Zero Day, the 2 kids keep saying how they are not influenced by anything environmental, which is obviously false since everything they do contradicts this. Neo-nazism, talking about going on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (which is laughable not only because they know his name, but its a shameless attempt by the filmmaker to get coverage of his bad movie)..etc. This movie doesn't depict 'reality', it shows nothing but phoniness to prove a point. Unfortunately you fell for the bait and didn't see this, and you didn't pick up on it from my review either. The entire movie is just taking Michael Moore's hypothesis and applying it to something 'real life' in hopes of validating and it fails, not necessarily because the hypothesis is wrong, but because the movie is wrong and doesn't support it. Of course I don't think kids that play video games are more likely to kill people, but if I'm not mistaken, didn't video tape exist of the Columbine kids (or some teen killers) shooting guns in the forest claiming how much they looked or acted like the weaponry in Doom? Hmmmmmmm, the distinction is kids are most likely aware of the media, influenced, but obviously balanced or intelligent enough that its not even an issue. Zero Day is a bad movie not because I really believe a correlation exists, but because the film maker doesn't know what hes trying to say, and the movie does more to disprove his point then support it. It's almost as if the new ratings given to video games made someone upset so they came up with 'Zero Day' in retaliation. If you want to see the 'mindless' teen killer theory pulled off right, go watch Bully.


I have complained to ABC about the cancellation of six degrees. If enough people do the same then it could be enough to bring this fabulous show back to life!! Just go onto the official site and the rest is simple enough. I do not understand why this show has been cancelled. What a fantastic show, cast and characters. The whole concept is gripping viewing! I am astounded that my favourite show is over after just one series. Why is this? Six degrees is phenomenal, it's better than so many other TV programmes out there! Until I heard they were stopping it from a friend it hadn't even occurred to me that this might happen.


Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.

Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made 'Cyborg' prior to it and the blistering 'Nemsis' the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said 'Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush.' However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.


Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)

Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..

Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).

And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..


The basic idea behind 'Dungeon of Harrow' isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say 'Special Guest Star' and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say 'Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln.' because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.


Complete waste of time.... This movie is not comedy, it's not drama, it's not romance...not even teenage comedy at least!!! Story... it should be some turn-over one end... but it's so disappointing! When movie has a turn-over on end I expect that turn-over to make movie even better (exp. 'Fight Club') but this turn-over makes movie even worse.... When I watch teenage comedy, and I don't do that very often, I expect lousy jokes and bunch of nudeness... Jokes are too lousy and there is no nudity... You got only one....very good looking I must admit... girl, and that's that! And she's fully dressed whole movie! Acting is bad... like soap series... Don't waste your time! There are porns with better story and acting!

(sorry on my bad English)


Much like Tinto Brass ('Caligula'), the people who made this movie can't tell the difference between explicitness and eroticism. No build-up at all, just throw naked women on the screen; no, it doesn't work that way. If close-ups of female genitalia aren't your thing, prepare to be looking away from the screen at many points (I often did). The 'all women are whores at heart' mentality of the movie is offensive, and the 'story' is by turns absurd and boring (the escape is the most boring part!). But halfway through there is a random scene that pops out of nowhere and involves one of the (female) prisoners and one of the (male) guards in a nude wrestling match, which she wins with a couple of judo moves. Although the choreography of the fight is bad, the whole scene is undeniably memorable. In fact, that scene and the nice cinematography are the only two reasons I give this film * out of 4, instead of 0.


Andaz Apna Apna is by far my second favorite comedy of all time, first being Namak Halal (even though that was technically a drama). Story is nothing groundbreaking, but the complications that are added to it make it awesome. Aamir Khan is a total cartoon. Just watch his expressions in the song Yeh Raat aur yeh doori. He is amazingly good at comedy, I never knew. Salman Khan was also good as the somewhat dimmer of the two characters. The noises he makes are almost as funny as Aamir's faces. Raveena and karisma serve their purpose but are nothing amazing. The real pick of the lot is Paresh Rawal as usual.

The plot is rather simple, Amar (Aamir) and Prem (Salman) are useless sons of poor fathers. They don't believe in hard work and just want to get rich the easy way. So both their brains come across an idea to woo a rich man's (Paresh Rawal) daughter (Raveena Tandon) who comes to India to look for a husband. So Amar and Prem meet on the trip and join hands to drive off the hundreds of other men trying to marry this girl. When they succeed, they now have to get rid of each other. Somehow both of them get into Raveena's house, Amar as an injured guy and Prem as his doctor. From here on they try to oust each other. But things are complicated as Raveena's friend (Karisma Kapoor) falls for Prem and pursues him. And rich man's evil twin brother (Rawal also) tries to get rid of the heiress and her father so he will inherit the money and sends in his two most trusted but bumbling fools to do the dirty work.

This is a movie you do not want to miss. Watch it! It will be worth it. I even own the DVD, its that good. And if you like this movie, I'd also recommend Gol Maal if you haven't already watched it. Other good comedies are Namak Halal and Hera Pheri (new).


This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic.


Yeah, a long time ago it turned into a tourist attraction. Now it's a prison again. Kind of. Well, it's more like an airport mixed together with a junior high school but there are lots of guys running around wearing orange jumpsuits, so I guess in that way it's like a prison. Not really though. When Sasha, Steven Seagal's character, is being admitted into prison, he's standing shackled in line and wanders over to a different line so he can talk to his friend, like he's in line for the security check at the airport. Then before too long he and his friend are throwing punches, smacking around a couple of security guards.

Let me tell you something. You assault a corrections officer in a federal prison, they'll shoot you on the spot. Ja Rule would have been shot about 30 times before he threw his second punch. Oh, and there are guys wearing beanies and bandanas and whatnot. In prison. Federal prison.

You can't dress like that at most high schools in America.

Speaking of Ja Rule, I have to say that the person who probably enjoyed his performance more than anyone else on earth, including Ja Rule himself, had to have been 50 Cent. Just before I watched this movie I saw one of those shows on TV about the greatest celebrity feuds ever, and like number 7 or 8 was this rivalry between 50 Cent, who had lived the thug life for real, and Ja Rule. Who had not. Every time I saw Ja Rule on screen the only thing I could picture was 50 Cent laughing his ass off. Ja Rule looks like a rowdy 9-year-old every time he appears on screen.

Anyway, getting back to the plot. It's funny. Sasha is an FBI agent working undercover and he agrees to let himself be sentenced to prison so he can get behind the criminal organization. He's sentenced to five years, and that old line between determination and stupidity instantly vanishes. Nothing else in the movie matters after that, it becomes a meaningless string of action sequences, most of which aren't even well choreographed.

Oh, how about this, a helicopter crashes through the roof of 'New Alcatraz' at one point, accidentally freeing all of the inmates. And what do they do? They all run out of their cells and play basketball in the middle of the cell block. Without so much as a basket. They had a ball, but it doesn't matter. The scene is so stupid they might as well have been playing hopscotch.

So some guy is being sentenced to be the first person ever to be executed in Alcatraz's state of the art execution chamber, evidently not for stealing $200 million dollars in gold, but for not telling where it was hidden once he was caught.

Hey, good thinking, people. If you can't get information out of someone, kill them. That's a great way to learn the truth! So some gang breaks into the prison planning to stop the execution and get the location of the $200 million for themselves.

Oh and the $200 million is in gold bricks. I doubt they thought ahead to how difficult it would be to turn that into exchangeable currency.

There's also the issue of the warden at the prison. He's some tough-talking vato who thinks he's a hardcore chollo from the barrio, which reminds me of a joke. I saw this comedian once talking about people in California who talk all tough calling each other ese and homes and all kinds of other such nonsense. These people go to Mexico, the comedian says, and they're like, 'Oh my god! People LIVE there? That's like, a total shack!'

The best is when the United States Supreme Court Justice arrives and this guy tells her that her men can't carry their guns inside his prison, 'I don't care if she IS a United States Supreme Court Justice!'

This woman could squish him like a grape and he thinks he's in charge. Ha.

And by the way, the Supreme Court Justice that gets taken as a hostage in the movie tells the bad guy that she is 53. That's a year younger than Steven Seagal. I just thought that was funny.

The only good scene in the movie is the one in the prison where Ja Rule is getting slapped around the prison like a sack of cotton balls by this little Asian woman. That was the funniest thing I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.

You know, I work for the company that produced this film (which I why I watched it), and I still don't have a single positive thing to say about it, except, of course, for that one scene with Ja Rule getting spanked by that Asian woman.

So read my review of Malena and you will see how strongly I sometimes disagree with professional film critics like Roger Ebert, but in his review of this movie Ebert wrote something that I agreed with as much as anything else he's ever written:

'I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated 'Half Past Dead' PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie 'Bowling for Columbine' an R.'

Way to go, guys.


So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, 'better actors...'


Firstly this has nothing to do with the much better 18 weapons of Kung Fu starring Gordon Liu. I mention this as my Kung Fu Theater presents DVD has a totally misleading picture on the cover, the wrong plot on the back and goes on to mention (no idea why) The Young Hero starring Hwang Jang Lee. Apart from an introduction to the history of the 18 weapons style told by a monk to some children during the opening and the usual mysterious manual that everyone is after, the weapons never really appear again and the fights are all boxing style. The hero is Lee Shao Hwa who I have never heard of before or any of the other actors. The film mentions another director Wu Yuen Ling as well as the one IMDb lists. The other actors are Wang Fu Quen, Wang Wing San, Chen Fei Fei, Wang Ki San, Suen King Kai and Hwa Yue Suen who seem to have sunk without trace after this film. The fights are reasonable and frequent but not great and the 'star' doesn't have much charisma. The twist at the end is just stupid and the film seems to end abruptly as though they got bored with it. The scenery and the training sequences in the river are a little different from usual. Unfortunately the pretty sister gets drowned not the very irritating (though acrobatic) young boy.


Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series.


One of the finest pieces of television drama of the last decade. Throughout the five hours, ones perceptions and sympathies are constantly challenged as it explores many facets of modern day British society. David Morrisey is, as usual, brilliant. At first coming across as a heavy handed copper in conflict with the heroine, but then proving to be intelligent and caring, as he works with her in uncovering the truth. I have never seen Surrane Jones before. I believe she comes from the world of television soaps. Her performance was magnificent, as she maintains her humour and composure whilst trying to balance the demands of the case and the stress of caring for her mother. I could go on and talk about every member of the cast who contributes to this magnificent drama, but their efforts would mean little without such an absorbing script that constantly challenges your assumptions about any of the characters. It is programmes like this that restore one's faith in television drama, whilst at the same time making it almost impossible to settle for most of the garbage that is increasingly filling the airwaves.


Role-reversal remake of 1942's 'The Major and the Minor' has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1/2 from ****


I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.

This is a supposed 'new look' at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a 'new look' then it's probably 'new' as in 'fresh and totally inept': just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.

I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a 'Manson tape' delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of 'the family' in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing 'Manson'? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this 'Manson' doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.

Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.

PS. The recent US TV production 'Helter Skelter' got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to 'Manson Family', that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad 'Manson Family' is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.


This little-appreciated movie is one of my favorites. I can watch it over and over. Dreyfus and Braga are masterful, but Raul Julia steals the show! A tongue-in-cheek, menacingly humorous Gomez Addams, with just the right tone for this irreverent spoof of this oft-told story.

Generally untrumpeted and unappreciated, Moon Over Parador allows you to check out of reality and join the fun going on up on the screen. Two thumbs up!


I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I think I've seen a lot.

But I've always wondered why this film got so shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself (because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to hear) what the film has to say.

I'm truly sorry there are still so many people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their beliefs.

Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any 'TOP 100 MOVIES OF ALL TIME'-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars 1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important piece of filmmaking.


So many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major 'cheese' category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.

This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this 'infection' spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.

The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....

Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.

One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...

Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.

The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an 'undisclosed location' giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me.


From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in 'K-19.' Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz.


The person making taffy in this movie was so realistic. That person must have been trained so well! If I were buying taffy from the store featured in this fine romantic comedy, I would demand to be served by the guy who trained the person who played the guy selling taffy.


I should have trusted my instincts better: No expectations - no disappointments. Instead, however, I expected to experience a similar masterpiece like Koyaanisqatsi (1983) and was brutally disappointed. Powaqqatsi is in my humble opinion nothing but a cheap attempt to cash in on the cult success of its predecessor, and - artistically - it fails miserably. It appears some producer gathered up leftover material from Koyaanisqatsi, hurriedly threw it together, placed everything in slow motion and got some pop entertainer under the pseudonym of Philip Glass to hurriedly throw together some banal background music, which is incessantly repeated. Where Koyaanisqatsi entertains the viewer with clever fast and slow motion changes, Powaqqatsi is one long sequence of mundane images in slow-motion (if you view them on your VCR in fast preview mode, you'll see what I mean). What disappointed me the most, however, was Philip Glass's soundtrack. I couldn't - and still can't - believe that these commercial-sounding New Age type drones, which could easily have been composed in one afternoon by any 14-year-old on a Casio calculator, were from the same composer who so brilliantly composed the emotional and perfectly-synchronized music for Koyaanisqatsi. All in all, a big waste of time! My advice: Forget commercialism! Watch Koyaanisqatsi again instead!


This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.


SPOILERS

This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his 'muscles' by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe.


La Teta y la Luna is a symbolic spain film. Everything that in this film occurs has a symbolic meaning. It is totally different to the usual movie that one has access.

This film is good but it will be good only for the people who want look for the meaning of everything in the film's tale. I must advice that this is not a sample film.

Please enjoy!!!


Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.

Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.

After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....

This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.


The movie doesn't take itself seriously, and if you follow its lead you're going to have a lot of fun (as long as you don't mind your murders served up really bloody, and your horror topped with extra cheese)!

This film winks an eye at every horror fan, and then gives them the finger. It knows it sucks, and because of that, it's far and away the best of the 'Child's Play' series.

It plays up the 'stoopid humor' angle so well, you find yourself doing more than just laughing AT it, but WITH it. And, trust me, the whole time you're laughing, it's laughing back atcha.


The power rangers is definitely the worst television show and completely ridiculous plastic toy line in the history of the United States.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely entertaining about this completely awful television show.

This is simply the worst show ever made, with awful actors, dressing up in multi colored spandex outfits that look completely ridiculous.

The owners of this show should be ashamed of themselves, since there is no redeeming value to this nonsense.

Kids of today should try watching better shows like the Toy Story movies instead of this garbage.


This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films.


By far one of the best sci-fi films out there. However, it does take multible viewings to understand the concept of the film and to be able to appreciate not only the special effect, but the main plot of the film itself. It is my own feelings that this film film got such poor reviews because no one took the time to watch the film the way it was meant to be seen. It does have some moments you wish would hurry up and pass by, but they are few and far between. Hooper, who directed TCM 1 and 2 along with a remake of INVADERS FROM MARS, and THE FUNHOUSE does his best work here. Great score, good acting,and great effects makes this a film to add to your collection, if you get the chance see the widescreen version on DVD, highly recommended to any one who is a fan of sci-fi.


This little seen movie is a languid and laid-back giallo. It veers away from some of the cliché's of the genre and adopts a looser approach. It's about a woman searching for her missing lover; a psychiatrist who has suddenly vanished for no apparent reason. Her search leads her to a villa populated by a group of eccentric individuals. In true giallo style, murder is never far away.

The cast is really rather good. We have Aldofo Celi (Thunderball), Alida Valli (Suspiria), Horst Frank (Cat o' Nine Tails) and a very young Sybil Danning (80's scream queen). The lead actress is Rosemary Dexter, and while I am not familiar with her, she does a good job in leading the picture.

One of the defining features of Eye in the Labyrinth is its music. Atypically for a giallo it features a jazz-rock fusion soundtrack. This score, composed by Roberto Nicolosi, is reminiscent of Miles Davis, especially his work on In A Silent Way. It's an excellent soundtrack and really gives this movie a different feel than most gialli. The fusion groove accentuates the languid atmosphere and compliments the sunny, sea-front scenery that the film is mostly made up of.

This is a giallo so we really need to talk about the murder set-pieces. Well, this film falls a little short in this regard. It's certainly not devoid of them but they are few and far between. The opening dream-murder being probably the best on offer as well as a memorable burning car sequence. But this really isn't a particularly violent film. Still, I don't think it should disappoint too many seasoned fans of the genre. The mystery is fairly compelling and it has enough eccentric characters (the idiot boy Saro and THAT unsettlingly inappropriate dubbed accent?) and moments of the bizarre to satisfy; while the sleaze-factor is upheld with a smattering of nudity throughout.

Eye in the Labyrinth plays like a giallo version of an Agatha Christie mystery, as it features a group of unsympathetic characters in a villa, all under suspicion of murder; we have the obligatory flashbacks detailing their connections with the final hours of the (highly unsympathetic) murder victim. While this isn't a grade-A example of the genre, it's certainly an appealingly different one, as it doesn't borrow too heavily from other films of the sub-genre. For giallo enthusiasts I give this a thumbs up and hope one day it's given a nice DVD transfer. It certainly deserves the treatment.


Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ('Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.') etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ('D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement).'). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, 'It's Anna!'


I've felt that Rupert Grint has a lot of promise from that role by which everyone knows him. So even though I had never heard of this film before, when it appeared in my cable TV listings, I immediately switched to that channel. I am so happy that I did!

I've read from other reviewers that they don't generally like coming of age stories; I on the other hand quite do. I am one of those who is always coming of age; I have been since I was 12, I'm 52 now, and I will probably continue until I'm 92. Coming of age is nothing more than suddenly realizing the possibilities that another day brings. The suddenness of the realization, the magnitude of it, sometimes throws us into disarray. If we try to shelter our delicate selves from that, then yes, I can see how the coming of age can end. But if we simply dust ourselves off, and settle into the new direction we've discovered, then we're all of a sudden on a new path, and we're just as alive as we were yesterday, only stronger, brighter, and I daresay, more interesting.

So that's what this movie was about. This was a coming of age story all the way round; young Ben, his father, Father Robert, and certainly Dame Evie... all went through a marvelous transformation. In fact, so too did Mr. Fincham, didn't he?! All did, I suspect, except in fact the mother, in spite of her enormous opportunity so to do, provided by the events of the end of the film. One is left with the feeling that she will continue on exactly the same path she's been on, only with perhaps a different supporting cast.

So an excellent film, that could not possibly have been made in America, which is utterly depressing to think about, but thank God we have a steady supply of films made elsewhere that we occasionally get to see. I really heartily recommend this film, so long as you don't mind cringing through those parts of it that are all too familiar to us all, and grinning through all the rest of it.


This movie is based on the novel Island of dr. Moreau By H.G. Wells. It's a fairly good one too, it's at least better than the version by John Frankenheimer.


In the small American town of Meadowvale Dr. Anthony Blake (David Gale, the IMDb listing for this character is wrong it's definitely Dr. Blake not Dr. Blakely) is the director and founder of the famed 'Psychological Research Institute' and also host's a local T.V. programme called 'Independent Thinkers'. He uses this T.V. show to hypnotise the viewers and make them commit acts of violence. Dr. Blake has the help of a large brain with an evil face that uses it's spinal cord as a tail thingy. Usually the brain is just sitting in a tank, eats mice and the odd bad actor, each time it eats someone it gets much bigger. Meanwhile at the local high-school gifted but troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski (Tom Bresnahan) has been caught putting Sodium down the toilets. Jim is sent to Dr. Blake at the PRI for help with his attitude and behavioural problems. While there Dr. Blake hooks Jim up to, well something I'm not actually sure what. This whatever it is, is attached to the brain. At first Jim is able to resist the brain's mind control. The brain feels that Jim is a threat to itself and it's plans. Once out of the PRI Jim starts having bizarre hallucinations and crashes his car. Jim makes it to his waitress girlfriend Janet (Cynthia Preston as Cyndy Preston) but is handed back to Dr. Blake's assistant Verna (George Buza) soon after by Officer Marks (Harry Booker). The brain wants to kill Jim because he is the only one capable of withstanding it's mind control techniques, and with 'Independent Thinkers' going national the brain doesn't want anything or anyone to stop it's evil plan for world domination! Jim quickly realises that the brain is controlling the entire town and he alone must stop the brain, before it takes over the world!

Directed by Ed Hunt who calls himself Edward Hunt here, the Brain wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong as it certainly isn't great either. The script by Barry Pearson tries a stab at satire with the brain washing and mind control by T.V. storyline. It moves along at a fair pace and isn't too boring. No explanation is given for the existence of the brain at all, it's just there and that's it we have to accept it. The story is a little choppy and never fully explores one single element, there's the T.V. mind control, the brain itself, Jim being hunted by the police & his misbehaviour and various other little bits and pieces here and there including a bizarre revelation regarding Dr. Blake that isn't explained at all. Production wise this film looks cheap, and probably was cheap. The acting isn't great but I've seen worse, and what is David Gale doing in this? In fact this role is similar to Gale's role in Re-Animator (1985) even down to his character's deaths in both films. The brain itself at first sits in a tank and starts to grow whenever it eats someone and by the end it is pretty big. Each stage is just made of rubber. It doesn't look particularly good and isn't scary or creepy, just cheap. There's no blood or gore in it apart from a blink and you'll miss it decapitation. The nudity is provided by Dr. Blake's assistant Vivian (Christine Kossak as Christine Kossack) before she gets eaten. The brain had a certain entertainment value for me but I would think most people would dislike it. Maybe worth a watch if you can see it on T.V. for free.


Altman's Quintet has to be considered more than just flawed: As so many other reviewers have pointed out, the ideas behind the film, even some of the choices in depicting those ideas, ought to work--and yet very little in this difficult film does. The partially fogged camera lens--I remarked to my wife that it has to be the most distracting directorial conceit I've ever seen--never allowed me to get 'into' the film's world.

In general there are serious problems with the mise-en-scene employed here. It's clear that no small amount of thought went into factors like costume and production design, but neither is very effective in evoking a believable world. Perhaps it is a matter of scale; the film is so stage-bound that I laughed out loud once it was mentioned that 'five million' people lived in the city. (Yes I understand the constraints of the film's budget. Matte paintings here and there might have helped.) In all the most disappointing Altman film I've ever seen. Great ideas and grand metaphors do not always come through in art--it's just part of the game.


This movie needs to come out on DVD cause that's the only way I will buy it. I thought it was soo funny because there was no real plot to it. It was not suppose to be an oscar winning film. I appreciate those films. Cary Elwes was a very cute Robin Hood. I can't even think of my favorite part of the movie because they are all pretty good. Anyways peace out.!!!!


This film should have been much better than it was. Christopher Eccleston is an excellent actor but even he couldn't rescue this tale of a young woman searching for the truth over her sister's death. Spoiler warning : In effect the truth is that the older sister ( played by Diaz) is just a spoilt, selfish and shallow girl who took too many drugs. Not much of a twist and not that interesting either. The film is also overladen with far too many flashbacks and voice overs and lacks dramatic pacing. All in all this is definitely worth missing - not to be recommended.


I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\home life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fiancé is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed 'Cuddles' (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime!


Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.)


I rented this pile of sewer waste hoping for a few good laughs. With a title like `Zombie Bikers from Detroit' and with Dead Alive productions stamped on the front cover, you would think that this could be a funny/gruesome film, but no. This is the worst movie I have ever seen (and yes, I have seen all of the Police Academy movies). The story (this is a joke within itself) and the dialogue are atrocious. The make up of the so-called zombies looks like they used one of those two dollar `Make yourself look like a Zombie' kits that you buy at K-Mart.

I would rather watch Beverly Hills 90210 while listening to the Backstreet Boys and be whipped by a 400lb novelty birthday card model than to sit through another single minute of this pathetic excuse for a DVD. Honestly, I could make a better movie with $3, some popsicle sticks and a slinky. I feel as if 90 minutes of my life were stripped away from me and taken to the land of Suckdom. I know that tagging on the Dead Alive production doesn't guarantee a great flick, but you do expect to get your moneys worth.

The only thing that made me happy (save, returning the horrid mass of elephant feces) was that it wasn't titled `Biker Zombies from Pittsburgh'. I feel for Detroit folks that wasted their hard-earned money on this one. Unless you have been lobotomized . Do not buy, rent if you must  But . You will regret it.


*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.


Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and 'funny' a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.

I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.

Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.

But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.

All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.


you have a strong stomach. Holden was actually 55 years old at filming but looked near 70 and he only lived another 8 years. At one point Holden said, 'I am over twice your age.' Okay, try triple grandpa! The 'old enough to be your father' theme they were shooting for didn't work. Granted senior citizens sometimes wind up with legal teens. More power to them, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. It's not a matter of judgment but the digestive track. I like my food where it belongs. Lenz is fun to watch and the 70s cars, clothes, furniture, etc. make it worth it if it comes on cable late at night and you want to watch something to wind down for bed. It would have been nice to see the blonde friend of Lenz, the one who hocked her guitar, get more scenes. Pleasingly spacey... Who was this chick? I'm going to try and find out.


Paul & Grace Hartman are my husbands grandparents. They were both deceased when we met so watching old movies is a good way to see them and their work. I have always enjoyed old movies and was very happy to discover that this was also a very good one.


OK, so it owes Pulp Fiction, but in my opinion has it's own voice and identity mainly because of the music-video direction style, sketch-like narrative and great performances. Thomas Jane delivers great (the drug-dealer show-down is extraordinary), Aaron Eckhart likewise. James LeGros has a short and effervescent appearance-great humor-'they got the Wong house'. The Porzikova interrogation and rape scene is memorable, as is Mickey Rourke's cameo appearance-'take a peak'.

Great Hollywood popcorn B-production with strong performances of A-level aspirants and renegades(Rourke).

Well, take a peak, it's worth.


All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would 'dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film,' described the biographical account of Custer's life as 'fanciful,' and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.

Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)

Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of 'usual suspects' and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).

Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of 'Garryowen' as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.

8 of 10


The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness.

In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?

Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.