Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, 'I don't remember sending for room service'. The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the 'Turkeys' shelf.


When young Frances 'Baby' Houseman goes to summer camp with her family, she never expected to have so much fun! One night, after wandering away from a resort activity, she stumbles upon a all night dance party with Johnny Castle and other fellow dancers. Quickly enthralled by the raunchy dance moves, 'Baby' is eager to learn when she has to fill in for Penny just so she and Johnny don't lose their jobs at the resort. But young 'Baby' soon finds herself in a sticky situation; she has fallen in love with a man she knows her father will never approve of. However, when Johnny is accused of stealing wallets, it is up to 'Baby' to confirm his alibi by admitting that she was with him the night they were taken. Johnny is fired anyway for getting involved with a visitor, but quickly realises what a mistake it was leaving 'Baby'. He comes back with that famous line 'No one puts Baby in a corner' and they show the resort exactly what they're made of.

An amazing film, perfect for a girly night in. With groovy tunes, inspiring dances and a story that will make you feel all warm inside, this has got to be the greatest film of all time! **********


On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.

However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.

Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.

These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.

Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.

Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.


This film is probably the worst film that I have ever seen. I'm studying french at college and thus understood all the dialog, so the language barrier wasn't an issue. I must say it is really hard to empathize with any of the characters depicted in the movie. There is only one professional actor in the cast and I'm guessing no professional directors or writers.

Although I have rated it 1 out of 10 it probably doesn't merit such a poor rating. This is merely a futile effort of lowering its current overall rating of 7.3 to something more realistic. Perhaps 4.3 would be a more accurate rating because the film is a true non-event 100 minutes or so in length that you will never get back.

The real shame is that I am sure some college student is busting his nut making a film twice as good and half the length. However if you want to join the bandwagon which seems to be rolling around IMDb you might as well go ahead give 'Lost in Translation' a 10 as well.


I saw the German version of the movie in German television and I was really amazed. I generally like to see documentaries, but I can't remember to have seen one that is better than 'Earth'. I knew some of the scenes from Youtube videos that I found by random browsing. I also remember to have seen parts of the film on multimedia stores, running on the displayed high definition TVs. After seeing the movie it's obvious to me why the footage is so popular among Youtube users and multimedia retail managers: It's just so awesome and spectacular that you can't help but stare on the screen, no matter if you're generally interested in nature documentaries or not.

Without hesitating a 10 out of 10. For sure, there are more thrilling movies, but in regard of documentaries, 'Earth' is definitely one of the best of it's genre.


In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a 'Devil Woman'. Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: 'Ah me!' I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.


Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.

But with lines like :

'It's easy to die, I have, many times'

and

'Why are you reading that book ?' 'Because it makes the plot more interesting'

and

'You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !' (after he leads a man into the basement)

(and take a listen to what they chant)

- it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?

An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again.


It doesn't matter whether you've experienced the plight of the elderly in America or if you're just plain clueless, Uncle Frank and Matthew Ginsburg give you that clue in a straight forward, funny, wake up and smell the roses sort of way. By the end of the film, it is obvious that while being totally entertained, somehow, you've also been educated. A terrific film, by a terrific up and coming talent in the movie field. Matthew Ginsburg is a name to pay attention to.


The first ever fully synchronized sound cartoon, Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse makes his screen debut in the exceptionally entertaining cartoon short subject 'Steamboat Willie'. Mickey is a worker on a steamboat under the supervision of captain Peg Leg Pete(or Pete as he would later be called). Mickey boards his long time companion Minnie Mouse aboard the train as they frolic about, while Mickey attempts to impress Minnie. This short was wildly fun and positively entertaining. Animators Ubbe Iwerks, Rudolph Ising, and Hugh Harman assisted Walt on the creation of the short.'Steamboat Willie' essentially marks the beginning of the success of the Walt Disney Company.


Shakespeare said that we are actors put into a great stage. But when this stage is Israel the work that we interpret multiplies for ten and all the actions we do are full of a hard style. Dan Katzir manages to do a spectacular portrait of a part of life in Tel Aviv, but besides, Katzir manages to penetrate into the heart of the Israeli people and, this people, far from being simple prominent figures, they speak to us from the heart. Katzir's film allows Israel escape from dark informative crux in which they live, and this wonderful country arises to the light as a splendid bird which is born of his ashes. It is very great for me because the reality of state of Israel, which the Europeans only know for the informative diaries or the newspapers, appears as a close and absolutly human reality, the reality of million people who looking for his place, exploring the whole state, the whole culture with the only aim to feel part of it. Katzir constructs an absolutely wonderful documentary and he demonstrates that when a man films with passion the deepest feelings are projected with force, and these feelings cross our hearts. Thank you Dan for open our eyes and give us one of the most beautiful portraits of the most wonderful countries of the world.


I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? 'Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!'

This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.


Get Shorty was an excellent film. It was funny and had the perfect balance of highly comical acting and a serious plot. Be Cool is like some cheap knock-off trying to pass for a sequel. John Travolta as Chili Palmer seems to have forgotten that he was ever in the mob. He plays it like he's a bored movie exec, rather than a bored movie exec who used to be a Shylock. Uma Thurman, great in nearly every role she's ever played, comes off as strained and confusing. Is she supposed to be ditzy or clever? The chemistry between her and Travolta is strained and uncomfortable. Other than that, just add every movie cliché you can think of. A well-educated rap producer by Cedric the Entertainer, an inept gangster wannabe in Andre 3000, the girl with heart, soul, and a good set of pipes in Christina Milian, a gimmicky black dude wannabe in Vince Vaughn, and a stupid celebrity cameo by Stephen Tyler. The only funny part was the Rock, who invents his own new cliché as a gay Samoan bodyguard actor wannabe. Probably the biggest crime is the plot: IT MAKES NO SENSE. Get Shorty was clever with Chili playing one group against another and coming out on top. But this film tries that with about a million different characters. And even Chili doesn't seem to know what's going on. Fans of Get Shorty be warned: this is a very different, very worse movie.


This story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 10 / 10


I especially liked the ending of this movie--I really felt what the characters must have felt, which I think is a mark of good directing. I was tickled with how the new hire at the record store turned out--great character development there, even though his 'role' would probably be considered minor.

I was also impressed that the entire film, while dark in its subject matter, was free from gratuitous nudity, profanity, and violence. Sadness, sexuality, and darkness can all be communicated (often better) by what is left unsaid, but it seems that this is often unique to really 'classy' films and actors. Kudos to the film-maker for that.


Divorced single mom in picturesque seaside town finds an anonymous love letter and allows it to spur into action her dormant love life. Pet project for actress/co-producer Kate Capshaw, who gives a warm, nicely-modulated lead performance, yet this story is so slim and the direction and editing so erratic that a faint dissatisfaction creeps in. Initially, Capshaw's Helen envisions several of her friends reading the love letter to her (an interesting visual joke) but the first person they do this ploy with is Ellen DeGeneres, who doesn't play a lesbian but who comes off as one because of this gimmick. Different ideas are flayed about in the hopes that one would stick, and the continuity is extremely choppy. Supporting cast (including Tom Selleck and Tom Everett Scott, who mostly acts with his shirt off) is very good, but they can't save the final act, which is disappointing. Low-keyed, in a quirky, pleasant way, but it is blandly good-natured, nothing more. **1/2 from ****


The appeal of ancient films like this one is that you get to see an actual moving image of life over 100 years ago. Here are a lot of people leaving a factory, all of them dead by now and none of them even remotely aware of the magnitude of the invention that they are walking before. I was shocked to read one reviewer call this film as boring as home videos today, and at least one other mistakenly identified it as the first film ever made (it was the first film made at the rate of 16 frames per second, rather than the then-normal 46 frames per second).

Sure, all you see is a lot of people filing out of a building and passing before the cinematograph on their way home from work, but this is a curiosity piece for dozens of reasons, not the least of which is that it was the first film made by the Lumiére brothers, who probably had a stronger impact on the development of the cinema than any other individual or group of individuals in history.


This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist.


'The first war to be 100% outsourced.' Dan Ackroyd's line says it all. This is a hard to describe film; comedy, satire, action, screwball. It reminded once or twice of Dr. Strangelove, especially so in the scenes featuring Ben Kingsley (who did a remarkable job I think). I had no particular expectations of this film, though I am a big John Cusack fan, so I just let the movie wash over me. And as a result I was quite entertained. The political satire is painfully accurate and quite damning of the US military-business complex. The sub-plots were somewhat predictable but the final interweaving of story lines made them all worthwhile. I can understand why this film was not terribly popular in the US, but for the rest of the world, it is a timely tale.


I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture

was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.


'Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire; it tells you how to desire.'

So begins 'The Pervert's Guide to Cinema,' in which Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies his Freudian/Lacanian brain-scalpel to world cinema. This film in three parts is the second feature documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes (yes, sister of Ralph and Joseph), and it is a notable accomplishment, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours of talk from one man and yet remaining humorous and engaging throughout. In essence, it is an extended film lecture, and one of the best you may ever get. Over the course of the film, Zizek guides us through a catalog of obsession and desire in film history. He touches on more than 40 films and, in particular, spends a great deal of time with Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, the Marx Brothers, and Eisenstein. But he also takes a close look at 'Persona,' 'The Conversation,' 'Three Colors: Blue,' 'Dogville,' 'Fight Club,' and 'The Exorcist.' Thematically, Zizek's inquiry into cinema ranges from thoughts on the death drive to the 'coordinates of desire,' and from Gnosticism to 'partial objects.'

'The Pervert's Guide' will be a slightly better experience if you've taken a few minutes to bone up on your basic Freudian terminology. However, even if you're not steeped in psychoanalytic theory, Zizek's dynamic and hilarious personality carries the film forward with such gusto that you aren't likely to balk at the specialized lingo. The film frequently cuts from movie clips to images of Zizek *inside* the movie he is talking about--that is, in the original locations and sets. The transitions in these sequences sustain such tension and humor that the trick never gets old. And Zizek himself is constantly making us laugh, either from bizarre little jokes or from his enthusiastic insistence on, for example, a bold Oedipal interpretation of 'The Birds.' And this go-ahead-and-laugh attitude, on the parts of both Fiennes and Zizek, is essential to the gonzo character of the film. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps us digest Zizek's weird medicine. After all, don't we all have a sense that, past a certain point, psychology theorists are just pulling our legs?


A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major trouble.

The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail Station, great fun 8/10.


'No one really knows how the Power came to be. Not even the Book of Damnation recorded its beginning, but those who mastered it have always been hunted The families of Ipswich formed a Covenant of Silence bla bla bla' After this intro, we suddenly see Take That. Or was it N'Synch? The Backstreet Boys, perhaps? Well, I don't know which of these they belong to, but one thing's for sure: the descendants of Salem are a boy-band. Can you tell them apart? I couldn't. If you can tell me which is which, I'd very much appreciate it. These boy-band boys looks so damn alike! Seriously now. Is this a horror movie or a film for teenie-boppers? It's sad that the (anyway weak) horror genre has been kidnapped by teens. And this is one of the teeniest I've seen so far. The movie is visually solid, but the cast is so bland, the acting so awful, that it was a trial finishing the movie. As bad as the cast was (after all, boy-bands and fashion models are rarely good actors) the absolute 'stand-out' in this regard was the guy playing the villain, Sebastian Stan. This guy's overacting is right up there with the worst in the history of film. I have rarely seen someone make such annoying and silly grimaces in such a short space of time. What's worse, he has the most baby-face of all the boy-band baby-faces in the entire cast. I mean, it's a joke.


Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.


1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they 'do not' use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French?

2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.

3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.

4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!


With a title 'borrowed' from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. 'Robert Carmichael' (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of 'extreme' filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked 'Clockwork Orange' and 'Irreversible' because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in 'Clockwork Orange' showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.)


I can't help but forget that incredible scene in Alien, when the extra terrestrial burst out of one of the men's chest. Or even in Predator when the invisible monster snuck upon the bewildered soldiers and cut them to pieces. Both these movies expressed fascinating ideas on the run-of-the-mill creature feature. Back track to the era of cheesy B-movies and watch big men in phony suits parading around killing people in small towns. Now recognize that the two movies above revolutionized this genre. The Cave does nothing to improve on it. It tries nothing new, and worst of all, The Cave doesn't even have good gore. Shame on them, shame on them all.

Parading around in sexy spandex are the one-dimensional characters of The Cave. All of which seem to not care when they witness the death of their colleagues. They just stroll along, unbeknownst to the evil creature lurking in the darkness. The plot is very easy to understand. So you got the two brothers, the black guy and the sexy female scientist. The rest (by the rest I mean all of those meet grisly demises) are even more unexciting then the others. We have the Korean assistant, the risky outdoor chick, a Russian scientist and two divers, both lacking a sense of emotion and are stupid enough to wander off by themselves. This movie exceeds to be extremely clichéd, since everybody but the black guy, one of the brothers and the female scientist meet an end. It also seems only Americans can survive the terror, since the Russian and the Korean die. Don't be offended if I give away details. There's no real surprise anyway.

To be straight forward they find this cave. They go in the cave. They get stuck in the cave. They start dying in the cave. One of them gets infected in the cave. More die in the cave. They get out of the cave; only to discover that one of them has a parasite that will turn them into a ghastly monster, which really doesn't seem to bother them. That's the simplicity of the lackluster plot. It doesn't even try to be original. It even has the part where they decide their leader isn't capable and split up. We have just seen this way to many times before.

I know in a movie like this, people don't care about the performances but it's worth mentioning how bad they were. Everyone is just so dreary. Cole Hauser was especially unsophisticated and don't get me started on Eddie Cibrian, who is frequently a lot better. Morris Chestnut is hands down the best thing in the movie. His performance is actually decent. He portrays the guy who calms everybody down. All the other actors are average at best. In a show like this, that's really not a bad thing.

Now to the reason we go to this genre of film; the action, of course. Well, to my regret, the action was dull. The death scenes are all boring, hell the whole movie was. There is barely any blood at all. It's either they disappear and found later or they are attack and die without a bruise. Seeing the Koreans man's death was the only exciting action I could find.

It's pretty amazing. The bad things over shadow most of the things that are good. A good example is to say the special effects were well done, which they were. The only thing wrong is that since everything takes place in a cave, it's going to be dark. I found it extremely hard to distinguish between the cave walls and the monsters. So it was pretty hard to even see the creatures. Although I liked the special effects, there was nothing original about the monsters. They all resembled each other and they weren't frightening at all.

The Cave marks the directorial debut for Bruce Hunt. I don't see what he was trying to accomplish by making this film. He obviously made a huge mistake. Almost everything about this movie stunk like a stink bomb. A stink bomb is probably even more pleasurable than watching this mess again. Only the most forgiving moviegoer will find this forgivable. I gave up all hope in the middle of the film when I heard the phrase 'what the hell was that', for the third time.


I loved this movie. I totally disagree with some (negative) critiques that I've read over the years. This was a great vehicle for Eddie Murphy! He appeared to have a great time with his part as Chandler Jarrell and he should never care about what the critics say, if he had fun doing it  and most of his audience enjoyed it! And, it WAS fun to watch as it combined some great fantasy tension with Mr. Murphy's great comedic style. You have to keep in mind that 'Golden Child' is a 'fantasy' film  just an imaginative work of magic and wonder amidst the 'real' world. During the time this film was released, I was working in a video rental store. This was one of the most popular with all our customers. Every single time, we put this one up on our monitor, ALL the copies we had went out fast with wait-list requests that kept it on the queue for months! Everyone who rented it loved it! I was the resident film critic and all my regular customers would ask my opinion before they rented  this was one of my favorites and I knew the taste of my customers so I highly recommended this one to most of them. I really feel that this film is a Sleeper  it may not have done too well at the box office  due to very poor marketing  but it hit a high in the video rental and purchase market later! (YES, I did buy this film for my own video library!). I adored the little boy who played the 'Golden Child'  J. L. Reate - but after looking at his profile in IMDb, I noticed that he never did any more films. That is sad, because he definitely had an on-screen aura and could have continued with a film career. I also adored Victor Wong, who played the Old Man (I LOVED him in his part as 'Egg Shen' in 'Big Trouble in Little China' - 1986). At any rate, this was a great film. The only drawbacks that didn't seem to fit with the theme were some of the parts that got a bit more 'adult' in nature  such as 'Chandler's rather sexual remarks about the serpent lady that was presented to him as a silhouette. It was funny, but it still was out of sync. OK, so there were a few suggestive gratuitous scenes  those were put in for the mind-set of the day perhaps. This was still an adventurous and escapist type of film which we do need today to get away from all the hard core reality and depressing fluff that we are hit with from Hollywood. Now that's Entertainment!


I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.

* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...


While I do not think this was a perfect 10, I do agree it was way above a 6 which is what it's rated here. No, Brokedown Palace was not perfect and yes it's plot has been done many times before. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again if it is done well and I think this movie had some strong moments. The acting of Claire Danes, as already mentioned many times, was flawless as was Kate Beckinsell and I Think Bill Pullman was absolutely terrific as was the supporting performances(Pullman's wife, the crooked cop, skip or trip or whatever his name is). The cinematography was also beautifully filmed, there was a lot that's good to this movie even if there were some negatives(three major ones that I found) as well.

Here is what I didn't like about it-the friendship between the girls-In fact, the girls' own individual personalities-were not developed in depth until the late middle of the pic. It would not have been improbable to lose interest before then, because, despite the positives, more character development should have been done earlier on and certain scenes like when the girls were originally arrested, were almost glossed over so there was a bit to much Jumping around without the character and scene development I think would have been appropriate for this type of film. That, however, is not my major problem. And WARNING-SPOILER ALERT.

The ending as mentioned dozens of times already, was AWFUL. It was awful in two respects. Firstly, even though it would have been predictable and very Hollywood, I wanted a happy ending! Yes, it was an emotional and powerful ending but in a movie such as this, there is a Sense that justice will be served and I did sit through it to see that. I was Genuinely shocked at the ending and It was performed with excellence by all involved but I feel both girls should have got out or, barring that, at least the cop should have got what was coming to him. I mean nothing happens To the bad guys, they all get away with it. Very disturbing.

Also, I do not understand the ambiguity of the ending. I understand endings that are inspired to make one think, but this was not a mystery or 'Clue' type movie we were watching, and I would have liked to know something about what actually happened,who was guilty etc, with this ending we were left to decide that ourselves but since I somehow doubt there will be a sequel, I did not want to be kept guessing.

Still, there was a lot to like about this movie, and the acting is definitely at the top of the list,I would rate this a 7.5 and say it is definitely worth a look.


The storyline has too many flaws and illogical sequences to be worthwhile. Jolie's acting is pretty flat and poor, Washington's is OK, the rest of the cast are cardboard cutouts. Somehow almost everything about this film oozes mediocrity. The plot is lame. The only thing I liked more or less about this film are the fairly original methods the perpetrator uses to end his victims. Technical details are worse than the most far-stretched CSI 'knowledge' and gizmos and halfway the movie one wonders if the director even cared about detail credibility. (Some Spoilers hereafter!) I mean, an EKG machine with a pure sinus wave reflecting a man's heartbeat, a quadriplegic with full body muscle spasms and one working index finger, sure. A killer gutting a man's bowels whilst keeping him alive to allow the rats to feast on him followed by a rat aiming for the guy's FACE! What's with all that stupidity? Then there are quite a few continuity goofs, but you can find those elsewhere here on IMDb Honestly I found it a bit of an insult even to my limited intelligence.

Waste of time. Still 4 out of 10 to keep my girlfriend from kicking me.


Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.

Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.

Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing.


Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.

Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.

Mind you, the version on the DVD is the 'director's cut', or in this case, 'let's salvage whatever we can' from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.

One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment 'I'll give you three guesses' was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned 'raunchy' with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another 'wink' at SOUND OF MUSIC.

The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her 'uncle' are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like 'what happened here?'

The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her 'uncle' are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there.

The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The 'Girl in no man's land' is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?

The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.

How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.


This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, 'which Zapatti was which?' After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a 'huge, blockbuster' big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of 'splash' in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.

So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie!


**Spoiler* It gives away the very irrelevant ending**

At the beginning of this movie, there was a brief intro to the world of gore by the master of gore movies, H.G. Lewis. He talked about how this movie was lost, and then found years after the director's death. He also talked about how gore movies were measured by the amount of stage blood used in it. Blood Feast was a 2 galloner, 10,000 Maniacs was a 5 galloner. But, then he goes and claims that Dr. Gore was a 15 galloner. I want to know where half of the 15 gallons went. Watching the movie, I saw very little near 15 gallons. Agreed, there was a fairly large amount of blood, but no where near 15 gallons. Some of the dismemberment scenes were definitely pretty gory and realistic, strings of flesh and all, but I wouldn't say 15 gallons.

'END!!! ENNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!' Does that sound familiar? That's what you should have been saying near the last half of this movie. After the Igor character was tossed into the acid bath, the movie slowed to a painful crawl. There was no coherent end, as it didn't fit into anything the 90 minutes before it provided. She drove off in a van with a total stranger, BIG DEAL! That's what happens when you keep an individual (I won't say person, because she doesn't qualify as a person) very innocent about the world around her. The doctor teaches the girl that a man is to be loved, so every man she meets, she loves.

Even though H.G. Lewis told us at the beginning of the movie that we may not like the acting, the directing, or even the gore... I will go with choices A and B. BOTH WERE TERRIBLE!! It was enough to give me bad dreams of cut editing and people with shifty eyes as they talk to one person. But, I made it through the movie, and came out stronger. Too bad I couldn't say the same after finishing ROBO C.H.I.C.

This was a BAD movie. I can usually take my doses of vinegar in good stride, but every once in a while, you get a movie that bites back. I think this movie took off an arm or a leg (haha... *sigh*) Admitted, I did enjoy the stare down scenes, where the good doctor stared at his future victims and opened his eyes REALLY wide and just stared. It was VERY similar to Fuad Ramseys in Blood Feast when he stared at that lady in his catering shop, and did not use his power after that. I guess this movie picks up where Fuad's powers left off.

*Final Judgement* The movie should have stayed lost. Good day

-Scott-


OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).

As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.

If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.

All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.


My mother told me not to go to see 'Kadosh' -- but who ever listens to one's mother?

I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.

While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).

The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies.

(originally written 4/29/2000)


As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.

Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.

This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is 'Fantastic!'.

Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.

So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. 'Fantastic!' - Almost as many 'Fantastic!''s as The Doctor! -


'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.

My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. 'Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties.' Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.

'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.

The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird.

Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.

A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.


Amando DeOssorio was never one to let a lack of budget get in the way of telling one of his stories. His 'Blind Dead' series started off great but had some truly laughable moments, such as shots of a small model boat in a water tank for 'The Ghost Galleon'. In 'The Sea Serpent', he hits rock bottom and takes some notable actors along with him, telling the tale of a silly sock monster that brings google-eyed terror to a few water tanks and miniature aquariums.

A vague opening sequence sets the stage and demonstrates an aborted military mission where American pilots, for some unknown reason, drop an atomic bomb (brazenly cartooned into the frame of the film) somewhere in the ocean off the coast of Spain. The military commander gives this order from an office that features a prominent American flag and a portrait of a deranged-looking Ronald Reagan, one of only a few things that makes this movie really seem like the Eighties. The other two are the hilariously inept subtitle that declares the year to be '1.985' and Tyria Power's dated Sheena Easton hairdo, which would have looked really cool next to some ripped neon sweats.

One of the kookiest monsters you will ever see rises from the depths, disturbed by the explosion caused by the bomb. We learn that the errant atom bomb has killed off a great deal of the local fish. Unfortunately for our cast, it has no effect on the Sea Serpent, which swiftly descends on the coast of Spain for some miniature-set mayhem.

Now when I say the monster is unrealistic, I am not exaggerating. It's not just 'sort of' fake looking. I'm sure the filmmakers did the best with the ten dollars that they seem to have been allotted, but most of the time it looks like it was made out of Crayola markers, a ping pong ball, and an old sock. Not only that, it has this ominous music that accompanies it wherever it goes, music that sounds so much like the 'Jaws' theme that it's a wonder nobody got sued.

Along with Tyria Power, Timothy Bottoms and Ray Milland are caught slumming, and the dialogue could not have been any more dismal. Through a series of plot contrivances, our leading actors are thrown together in a quest to...well, I'm not sure what the purpose is. Bottoms and Power have got to prove the serpent is real in order to save their butts (he is blamed for a serpent-induced shipwreck, she is locked in the loony bin after a sighting). None of this matters, because by the end of the movie nothing has been resolved. Nobody admits the serpent is real, and it's not even dead. Furthermore, Power and Bottoms are still on the lam from the law.

As illogical as it seems, nobody but our heroes knows that the serpent exists (despite numerous disappearances, a trashed lighthouse, and a crushed railroad bridge), and they embark on an extended non-adventure to track down and chase the monster away...not kill it, since they know they are no match for it. Their big plan is to use flares to scare it off. Although their scheme is botched, the serpent causes a big explosion in the water after it attacks a bridge support (don't ask), and the giant sea snake is so frightened that it swims away. The critical viewer would wonder why the serpent wasn't frightened off earlier in the movie when it caused a couple of big explosions after crashing into a dock. But never mind. It swims away, and our heroes are sure it's gone forever. The end.

I can only imagine the horror that the stars felt when they saw the completed film they just worked on. A lamebrain script and a couple of dim reaction shots could never have prepared them for the embarrassment of sharing screen time with a spliced-in sock puppet/stop motion beastie. At least the supporting characters got to have fun screaming and pretending to be swallowed by a giant serpent head. I'm not sure what was going on when they made this movie; the monster is cheap, but there are some rather elaborate miniature sets, so somebody did spend some time making those, not to mention the stop-motion animation involved. It's seemingly played straight, although maybe this film's sense of humor went over my head. In the end, the film is nothing more than an easy target for a drunken commentary. Watch it at a party for best results.


I watched the movie in a preview and I really loved it. The cast is excellent and the plot is sometimes absolutely hilarious. Another highlight of the movie is definitely the music, which hopefully will be released soon. I recommend it to everyone who likes the British humour and especially to all musicians. Go and see. It's great.


I liked SOLINO very much. It is a very heart-rending story of an italian family moving to Germany. And it's an story about brotherly love, hope and disappointment. And the film is never boring. Go and see SOLINO!


A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.


Betty is an understudy for the lead in a production of Verdi's Macbeth. When a car mysteriously hits the lead, Betty is thrust into the spotlight. Opening night is a smashing success and Betty decides to leave the after-party to celebrate in private with her boyfriend. But when the boyfriend leaves the room, Betty is grabbed from behind by an unknown black-gloved, masked figure. The unknown assailant ties Betty to a column, gags her, and places needles under her eyes that will cause incredible damage and pain should Betty close them. The boyfriend returns to the room and is stunned to see Betty in such a predicament. He's even more shocked when the killer grabs him and shoves a knife through his lower jaw with such force, the tip of the knife can clearly be seen in his mouth. And Betty has been forced to watch all of this. So begins Betty's terrifying ordeal with a killer not just intent on hurting her, but also on forcing her to watch as he mutilates her friends.

Opera gets classified as a Giallo, but to me, it differs in quite a few ways from the model. Less emphasis is placed on the mystery elements of the story than in something like Argento's Tenebre or The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. The black-gloved, masked killer may be omnipresent, but the clues and red herrings normally associated with a good Giallo are absent. Instead, Opera is all about the tension of an unknown killer and making the audience uncomfortable. The focus is on the grisly death scenes, Betty's fear, and the killer's obsession with Betty.

Opera features what I think are some of Argento most artistic death scenes. When the killer grabs Betty after her boyfriend leaves the room, you're sure that Betty's had it. But the sadistic killer only wants to force Betty to watch as he brutally stabs her lover in the neck  the knife emerging in his mouth. It's a well shot and designed scene. And those needles in the eyes  brilliant. Or, take the death of the seamstress. At first her death seems like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill murder. But when the seamstress accidentally swallows the killer's locket, what started out as just another death scene turns it up a notch as the killer uses a pair of scissors to cut the girl's throat open to get his chain. Finally, there's the most famous death scene in Opera that I'm amazed with each time I see it  Mira is shot in the eye while peering through a keyhole. That scene displays a lot of what I like about Argento. It's got style to burn. As implausible as it may be, it's creative, memorable, and a blast to watch.

Argento certainly wasn't the first Italian director to concentrate on eye mutilation, but in Opera, he's taken eye trauma to a new level. Needles holding eyes open, a bullet in the eye, and ravens pecking out an eye are all part of Argento's vision (pun intended). And these scenes do have the effect that I believe Argento was going for. The first time I saw the killer putting those needles in Betty's eyes, I couldn't stop blinking. It actually had a physical effect on me. What is it about the eyes that make them such a target for abuse in Italian films?

To be fair (and not sound like such a fanboy), there are problems I have with Opera that keep me from rating it as Argento's best. One of my problems is with the air duct system running through Betty's apartment building. While I don't doubt there are air duct systems in older apartment buildings that connect the apartments, the ducts in Opera are HUGE. I'm no expert, but I sincerely doubt any building like the one in this movie would have had such mammoth air ducts. It doesn't seem practical at all. And don't you think someone would have done something about them long ago to keep criminals and nosey neighbors out of the other apartments? It's convenient for the plot, but it's not very realistic.

But I suppose my major problem with the film comes with the finale. What's up with that ending? It feels totally out of place, tacked on, and like a bad afterthought. I'm not sure what else to say other than it's horrible.


Standard 'paint-by-numbers' monster fare, filled with a bunch of routine plot devices from big-creature movies. It's like somebody had a deck of cards with plot ideas from other movies written on them, which were shuffled, and dealt. Whatever plot lines and characters came up in the deal were then tossed into the script.

Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of 'Guess who ends up as a monster meal' after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured. Many of the characters are so obnoxious, that you root for the creature to shut them up. Some of the main characters include: a Billy Idol clone who surfs with sharks, a loudmouth brat who flashes bankrolls, a Capt. Ahab guy with a vendetta, and Ahab's girlfriend who does sleazy dances at a bar. Oh, and a big, big beast in need of anger management therapy.

Along the way, people argue a lot, pretty girls run around with wet t-shirts, couples make out on exotic beaches, explosions occur, ruins of a shrine appear, and greasy-faced pirates drop by.

Amusing, for the most part, but one thing bothered me: the callousness by characters when other people were killed. After one violent demise, they make one-liner jokes. I could almost hear rim shots.

Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one.


Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).

The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the 'deep, meaningful' conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.

Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several 'kind and gentle' (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......

In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.


Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.

This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).

Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.


Thursday June 9, 6:45pm Broadway Performance Hall & Saturday June 11, 1:45pm Broadway Performance Hall

Bless the independent filmmaker. Without them we'd see nothing but Spielberg the Farrelly brothers and films based on old sitcoms. They are the risk takers. They reap the rewards of success and suffer the failures. Max and Grace is most definitely a failure. Credit is deserved by Michael Parness for getting out there and making his first feature which he claims drove him to bankruptcy. He might be better off sticking to the stage if this film is any indication of what to expect in the future. Even though everyone warned me I went to see Max and Grace anyway, hoping I might discover something they did not. It starts off well enough, a party for Max in his parent's house shot in warm subdued light, the camera floating into interesting angles. As soon as we see Max has hung himself, an obvious rip-off of Harold and Maude, the whole thing goes right in the tank. How could he do this unnoticed in the middle of a birthday party? For that matter how could two mentally ill and committed psychiatric patients decide to get married and do it with the blessings of all parties concerned? In the Q&A after the film David Krumholtz suggested the entire story was the surrealist dream of his character Max. This story is so badly written the comment sounded more like an excuse. The film doesn't look as though it was made on a shoestring, all the more reason to be so disappointed with the results. What's intended as funny isn't but instead is offensively bad. The continuity is sloppy the lighting is dreadful and the effects look cheap and forced. BPH seats under three hundred and was surprisingly full but I saw at least thirty or forty walkouts within the first half-hour. At one point Grace, played by Natasha Lyonne, laments her inability to die. I found myself thinking the same thing since I never walk out before the credits. If Krumholtz really thinks this is 'one of the best scripts' he has ever read it sounds like he needs to catch up on his reading. A terrible waste of talent and resources, this is the worst independent I've seen since Bubba-Ho-tep.


I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).

What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.


I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10


First, I would like to admit that Chokher Bali was not my cup of tea. This movie was evidently not targeted toward the masses. It's the type that critics would enjoy watching. The hype and publicity were quite misleading.

I was expecting something very dramatic like Devdas. Understanding that the story and time-period demand it, I found the movie extremely slow-paced.

I'm a die-hard Aishwarya fan, and I regret to say that I thought she was miscast. The role of Chokher Bali required an actress who can portray herself as subversive, not innocent and naive. Everyone else gave a good performance. Tagore's depiction of the human condition does come across the celluloid to give the movie an interesting theme.


I saw this movie in Santa Monica on Aug. 23 and it has stayed with me. I want to thank the filmmakers for digging into the details of Harry's enigmatic, eccentric, life. And also for showing the flaws and failings of Nilsson the man. Thanks for showing the good and bad, the ups and downs, and for uncovering that amazing BBC footage. The film is also a great showcase of a vast amount of Nilsson's music, really well placed throughout the film. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes good documentaries, especially if you are interested in Harry Nilsson or the music scene of the early 70's. Some reviewer at the Ain't It Cool website wrote that this was the best movie movie they saw at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and I believe it. The film is informative, funny, sad, touching, and full of awesome music. It succeeds on all levels. Really, really good.


This is quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series).

Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7/10.


While he was great in Boogie Nights, I think that this was Burt Reynolds' best performance. He's also a great director and has made a tough, violent movie that doesn't hold back (a hooker's death by 12 gauge) and is an excellent detective story with some great actors (Brian Keith, Bernie Casey, etc.) and an outstanding jazz soundtrack. 10 out of 10


There's not really that much wrong with Crash of the Moons. Basically it's a few episodes of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger merged into a film. It is extremely dated, however. Winky's treatment of Vena is a good example of this. One has to remember that it was geared to be shown to children in the 1950's. In this respect, it succeeds. If you like children's sci-fi from the 1950's, go ahead and take a look at it. You'll see John Banner in a pre-sgt. Schultz role. He does a pretty good job in it. All in all, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Not great, but not bad.


Holy crap this movie was bad. I watched it just as a joke. It isn't even so bad that it's good in an unintentional way. This film seemed to be designed to personally make me angry. It worked really well at doing that. It's as if the people who made this just took all of the really annoying stuff about the movie PRIEST, added in a bunch of ugly dudes, took out anything interesting, funny, or even remotely sexy and clever out of the concoction, and then added in a bunch of old rotten cheese. That's all this is. Cheese. There isn't a single person this film could possibly connect to. There isn't any universe this film could possibly take place in. Why can't a film like this just be about enjoying life and being happy? Why did they have to make this already stupid idea for a film even more ridiculous than it already is? Why couldn't they at least even tried to make it an okay film, or even a B-movie. Now that I think of it, what they hell were they trying to do with this film? I watched it expecting a campy love story and instead I got some boring student project about some idiot who has to find the strength and courage to marry his boyfriend while his annoying Christian brother tried to destroy it all!!! No, I'm not joking. That's what it's about. Does that sound good? This film is pretty ignorant against people of the Christan religion, with it's stereotyping of all Christians being loudmouthed, rude, and hellbent on making as many people as miserable as possible. A lot of Christian people I know would never speak or act like these freaks. The film, however, is just as unfair and ignorant to the gay community as well. These have got to be the most tastelessly crafted stereotypical gay men since the guy on the radio station on that ROADKILL video game. It's so nerve wracking and simply irritating to the point that I wasn't able to fully pay attention to this film. The makers of this train-wreck had no strategy for set design, acting, camera angles, lighting, script, authenticity, or an idea to make this entertaining or interesting. There isn't even a single sex scene, or at least not a believable one. Jamie Brett Gabel was the only guy in the film that looked any good at all, but his good looks were sadly put to waste. This is trash. In a perfect world, this film would get voted a 0.0. It's worth 0 as a film alone. A mentally handicapped nun who is blind, deaf, and has tiny little bones for arms and legs and whose face is located on her armpit could write, direct, and produce a better film, and she'd probably be a better actor as well. the fact that this film exists is a crime against the word 'film' itself. This film is so bad that other films should be ashamed of being available in the same watchable format. I could put a broom in a chair and then record it with a camera and then stop the film and then replace it with a mini x-mas tree and then record that and I've already made a film that will always be better than BEN & ARTHUR by at least half. There are only two things worse than death. Torture and watching BEN & ARTHUR. I'm a homosexual and I will probably be the gayest person you will ever meet if you ever met me, and I don't think I've ever been more offended by an entire film than I was by the first five seconds of this film alone. If this movie was a mistake, I will personally find a way to change the famous phrase 'It's okay to make mistakes' to 'It's okay to make mistakes unless that mistake was BEN & ARTHUR.' You know how people always say things like, 'Good things come out of everything!'? I think that BEN & ARTHUR was primarily invented so that there could be something on this earth that nothing good would ever come out of. To call this movie the worst movie I've ever seen would be giving it WAY too much credit. It's as if this film were designed just so that it could qualify in a category of it's very own. There are good movies, there are bad movies, and then there's BEN & ARTHUR. This is BEN AND ARTHUR.


Psycho criminal pure by Carl Schenkel, who is active in Hollywood, like Mrs Soutendijk. Goetz George and Hannes Jaenicke are stealing the spectator's last peace of snugness. They are too able, how can I get calm into a lift next time ?


Due to this show getting cut early I never realized why until I recently read the story behind the series. I felt this show never got its dues as one of the greatest shows, this show is iconic in nature and deserves the movie it was always intended to have if not with the original A team cast at least with the cast incorporated into the story line or a lengthy cameo, perhaps at the end commemorate it to the late Col. Hanibal Smith(Preppard). This cast gave so much to bring happiness to us growing up they deserve one last heave ho the fact that the series ended openly because they slashed the series is reason enough. This crew and cast made us realize as children the essence of being one of the good guys especially seeing how screwed up the world is today, I think a milder version like the original should be put into motion I have already read the previews and I know these are not the plans but if anything a straight to DVD movie, I sure would buy it. I really do not get how crappy shows get series finales but this great show which still runs regularly today and probably gets watched more than some of the current garbage shows of today don't we will always remember the Incredible Hulk series, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and the A team because those kind of shows carry through time, I am almost positive these knew ones you see about detectives will not even be remembered in 10 years so why not bring back something and show the people what staying power is all about and how these old shows really are all about.


This movie is amazing for several reasons. Harris takes an extremely awkward documentary and turns it into a relevant social commentary. Groovin' Gary is a small-town kid who is (assumed) well-liked for his many impersonations. When he decides to play Olivia Newton John in a local talent show (for whom he is very passionate), Gary's actions show that he is at odds with the conservative social environment in which he lives. This results in him making various justifications for his actions so that people will not think that he is in fact a transvestite or other such social outcast. In the second installment, Harris exploites the struggle between Gary and Beaver in a novice attempt to make a narrative out of the original documentary. The third and final installment to the trilogy is truly amazing for Harris' extreme sensitivity with the subject. Unlike the second installment, 'The Orkly Kid' shows Gary as a truly troubled character. He struggles to gain acceptance within his own community to no avail. His secret passion for dressing like Olivia Newton John distances him even further from the people that already consider him a social outcast. The movie is depicted so realistically that, like reality, it lends itself to many reactions. Surely, one can see Gary as a ridiculously pathetic character, but may also identify with him as an outcast.


Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience.


Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line 'Tori Spelling can't act' as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10


Wow, its been quite a while since I've watched anything so mysterious in the way it is portrayed.

A Detective Story uses old fashioned black and white images to portray a private investigator who dresses in an old fashioned trench coat and hat. The theme of this animation is reminiscent of that of Sam Spayed which was briefly mentioned by Ash.

Sick of spying on cheating house wives because of his clients, Ash was offered a chance to track down a 'computer hacker' which he thought was a worthwhile chance for a four figure sum he could not turn down and the rest is history.

The ending was a little bit bland but still okay. For those out there who like old fashion stories this is the one for you.


I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.


This HTV series is beautiful. I strongly recommend watching the movie. It has got everything it should: remarkable script, strong characters, beautiful scenery and exceptional atmosphere. Add some ambient score from Clannad and you receive unforgettable picture. I love every adventure movie from HTV I saw: Return To Treasure Island, Smuggler, Adventurer, but Robin of Sherwood beats them all. I would like to thank the whole HTV production team and Richard Carpenter in particular for giving me plenty of adventures and excitement. I have got the DVD release in my little movie collection. I regret very much movies like these are not made anymore.


GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II.

We've had quite a few documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming. Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own.

There was CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied Commander.

Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man/Author, Jim Bishop was the host/navigator of BATTLELINE.

And there was the excellent WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's speaking the words of Sir Winston.

It is the 1952 NBC Television Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the cigar, hands down.

To begin with, this had to have taken the production several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

Once that was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a series of 1/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture project.

The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode descriptions.

Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are intricate, full, variable and even 'classic' in the true sense.

The Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record/cassette tape/compact disk, it has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing to the viewer/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake.

* SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers.

** We had in additional 'Ace in the Hole' in our house in the person of our Father, the Late Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate any of the situations that were depicted in the series.

He and our Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister, Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant.


Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.

Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.

So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!

The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.

I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!

~*~CupidGrl~*~


Vodka Lemon is a charming, yet extremely uneven Arminian film that will delight some and bore others. Though reasonably well-crafted, the film lacks any real 'zing', relying instead on many scenes that will seem commonplace to the astute art-house viewer. The film contains a handful of moments of sheer cinematic brilliance, unfortunately, they deserve a film worthy of their genius. Too dark to be a dark comedy and to light to be a serious drama, Vodka Lemon will leave many views disoriented and ultimately disgruntled. You may laugh, but these moments will be few and far between amid a sea of washed out snow filled landscapes and a seemingly endless series of bus rides. A noble effort, ultimately done in by lack of narrative cohesion.


I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate

look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget

society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge

brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather

mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.

Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.

have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a

Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is

almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes

growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She

prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like

headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We

never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint

that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still

beautiful and full of life.

In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's

lives have become much less than what they once were. Little

Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her

earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and

even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings

along with a recording of 'Tea for Two' she made decades ago is

one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a

model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to

find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,

full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic

bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.

Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little

Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the 'tea for two' sequence,

the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver

scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly

candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable

since it's all real.

I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth

Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's

worth every penny.


This film is probably pro-Muslimization.

Why do I write that? The main character has a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He lives his first 20 years in a Christian village. In the end of the film he seemingly is a Muslim because of his head-wear, that he has kept his amulet, and his general clothing. He has a six year old child, who wears the same head-wear and therefore is probably a Muslim, although the mother is a Christian. The main character thus chooses to, it seems, to be a Muslim and his child becomes a Muslim. No one of the other male main characters, which are Christians, seems to breed a child. There are more Muslims in the world of this movie at the end of it, it therefore seems.


The Movie I thought was excellent it was suppose to be about romance with a little suspense in between.

Rob Stewart is a wonderful actor I don't know why people keep giving him a bad rap. As for Mel Harris she is a great actress and for those who thinks she looks too old for Rob it's only by five years.

Rob had a lead role in his own TV series as well as one on the Scifi channel. I'm sure you remember Topical Heat aka Sweating Bullets and PainKiller Jane.

He also starred in a number of TV movies and is now making a TV Mini series.

They need to give him more leading roles that is what he is best at.