OK, normally I am fascinated by Z movies. Some of the actors, directors, writers, etc. in those movies have a shred of talent. They want to get that talent out so unfortunately for them, they have to associate with crappy people to make their films. But some Z films do have at least one thing that may be noteworthy about them.

Not here.

As soon as I saw it I thought...'Wow, a Blade knock-off.' Believe me, if this movie could have lived up to that label that would have made it a better movie.

Instead I was subjected to some of the most horrible acting I have ever seen in my life. Master Kao was bad, so bad that I believe some of my neurons in my brain exploded trying to comprehend his acting. I am still trying to make sense of his enunciation and why he would raise his voice in speaking certain words...to add dramatic effect I'm sure...but it was for no apparent reason. Simply mind boggling.

Oh and then there is the black guy in the purple cape near the end of the movie. Purple cape guy fights the hero for about 30 seconds, but he is so bad that it actually looked like he was scared of fighting.

The main hero and the main villain did decent jobs. The main hero (Derek Washington) seemed like he actually knew martial arts.


Garlin did a great job. Nice concept well executed, and tightly produced. Came across as a very sincere story. As a fan of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm', where Jeff was pretty much the straight guy role, I was delighted with how much depth he brought to this role in a simple yet effective portrayal.

Much of the humor was understated and subtle and drew on poignancy, which I really liked, rather than being slapstick or over-explained. And there were some nice little surprises and twists. The convenience store vignettes were a delight.

When I say it is a wonderful 'small' film, I don't mean budget or quality. It is simple, intimate and hand-crafted. It tells a highly believable everyday story. Relax and go see it. Let it wash over you, and you will feel good for having done so.


The plot of 'Edison' was decent, but one actor in particular ruined the entire film. Justin Timberlake ruined the film with every line he uttered during the movie. He is by far one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and should face the same fate as the entire F.R.A.T. squad.

Whether it was an emotional scene, an action scene, or even a silent scene, Justin Timberlake managed to ruin it.

Do not waste your time watching this film. Don't even bother downloading it, midget porn would be a much better choice.

And Justin, if you're reading this, stick to music. Even though you're no good at that, you've done a wonderful job tricking people into thinking you can actually sing.


Spirit is a unique and original look at western life from the point of view of a wild horse, and native Americans. The film focuses on the friendships and perils that a wild horse, Spirit, encounters during his life.

Very well done in the presentation, using the technology available today to deliver stunning visuals that are breathtaking in their depth and realism.

The music is fantastic, with songs by Bryan Adams, and music by Hans Zimmer, who also was responsible for the extremely popular music from the 1994 Disney hit, The Lion King.

The story is not very deep but the fact that it isn't quite as in-depth as some movies doesn't in my opinion detract from the film as a whole.

An excellent film which I enjoyed immensely, and that is suitable for all the family. Not one to be missed. (10/10)


Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.

Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!

If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order)


I can not believe the positive reaction to this movie. I had great expectations for it and was disappointed. First of all, they used every cheesy racism cliché in the book. It was so predictable. For instance, from the second the young Latino guy showed up you just knew that he would be a really nice guy because he looked like a gangbanger. Matt Dillon's character has been played a million times, a cop who had been hardened over the years and would see the light to some degree by the end of the movie. The predictability hardly ended with those characters. A phenomenal cast was wasted on a weak script. The morals of the story were PC to the max. There were a few clever twists but not nearly enough. The dialouge was embarrassing at times. It wasn't all bad.I just can't believe this movies high score so far. It was somewhat entertaining, just a little insulting to ones intelligence. I admire what this movie was trying to achieve but it fell well short.


Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...

I thought 'Straightheads' was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call 'Straightheads' a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how 'Straightheads' got a cinema release.

I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. 'Straightheads' had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily 'Straightheads' went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.

It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).

If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' 'Dead Man's Shoes'. It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his 'This Is England' instead. Ce sera sera...


There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.

The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives.


Title: Opera (1987) Director: Dario Argento Cast: Cristina Masillach, Ian Charleson, Urbano Barberini, Daria Nicolodi Review: The only other Argento movie I had seen was Suspiria and that one blew me away with its style, colors and spooky story line. I next decided to go with Opera as I had been told it was one of his best. Man, I think I'm discovering what will ultimately be one of my favorite horror directors.

Opera is about a young opera singer who gets her big break when the main star of a creepy modern opera take on Mc Beth gets hit by a car. Betty is the understudy so she gets to do the part herself. Too bad for her there's a psycho after her who makes her watch the brutal murders of her friends and co-workers.

Wow, Id heard good things about this here flick, but I wasn't prepared for the level of greatness to which this film would take me. Yeah the movie has its shortcomings to which Ill get to later. But for the most part the movie blew me away.

First off, this movie is not as filled with lots of colors as Suspiria. I was expecting it to be a bit like suspiria in that department, but no, to my surprise it had its own look and feel. The film is somehow devoid of color. It does have lots in colors in certain scenes (like the masterful kitchen/living room sequence) where Argento fills the screen with lush greens and blues, but for the most part the film has a grayish, black tone to it all through out and I liked that it had its own distinctive look.

The real stars of this show are the incredibly well orchestrated death sequences. Wow. Every death scene was like a work of art. Beauty in destruction. These are not just your typical hack and slash death sequences, these deaths were carefully constructed to shock and get the most out of its situations. Loved every second of them, there's plenty of blood and mayhem here, but with style. Not gonna spoil em though.

Then there's the direction. Man, there's some really original and beautiful shots on this one. I loved the inventive use of the camera on this one. You thought that Tarantinos shot in Kill Bill vol. 1 where we see the bullet coming out of the chamber of the gun was original? Well this is the movie he lifted it from! I honestly believe that Tarantino was heavily influenced by this specific movie with certain scenes in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Heck in the making of feature he mentions that the whole scene with Beatrix in the hospital and Elle Driver coming to kill her was influenced by Italian Giallos, and here my friends is the proof of that. Anyhows, Tarantino references aside, this movie has some amazing camera shots, like those scenes of the crows flying through the crowd in the opera house...great stuff. And a main reason why Argentos becoming one of my favorites.

The acting from most of the cast was alright, but the best by far was Cristina Marsillach as the tortured young opera singer Betty. The looks in her eyes as the murders were being committed were great. The rest of the cast was a little wooden and stiff, but nothing that would deter your enjoyment of the film.

There were very few things I didn't like about this movie. First off logic was thrown out the window in certain scenes. Specially those involving Bettys reactions after shes seen the murders. It seem to me that for the longest time, she just went on about her business, not telling anyone about the whole thing. Not even the police. I mean if you see someone brutally murder a loved one in front of your eyes...you don't just walk away from the murder scene and continue with your life. Someone would have connected her to the murders. She might have even become a suspect herself...but no. Also the ending is a bit anti climactic. You'll have to see this to understand, but it seemed a bit unnecessary the way the film ended, it felt like it could have ended earlier. It would not have felt so redundant. But thats about it, not real big problems for me really since I was enjoying the rest of this beautiful film.

I've still got a lot of Argento territory to cover...but I'm devouring every step of the way like if I was eating a plate of the most expensive caviar. This guys really good. I think of his films as works of art, and I've only seen two of em! Cant wait to discover the rest of his films. Argento, you the man!

Rating: 41/2 out of 5


Extremely formulaic with cosmic-sized logic holes and a pretense at comedy. Aw, poor NYC lawyer! He's just scraping by, and when he gets a reduction in pay he doesn't go out to find another job, though he's one of the most respected lawyers in the area. We see him arguing in court so that others come up and congratulate him on his fiery, winning delivery, but he can't stand up to anyone in his firm. At home, problems are ignored until people storm out of the house.

The only character you want to root for is the final maid, who seems an actual human being who uses logic and communication to survive in the world. How laughable that the maid should bring the lawyer and his wife a chicken and wine on New Year's Eve because she feels sorry for them! (The bit's not played for laughs.)

Sorry, just too unbelievable and with a **SPOILER** pat, everyone-turns-180-degrees ending. How'd they get top-notch stars for this? If I'd been at the studio I'd have sent this one back for a complete rewrite.


Every Saturday morning at 11 a.m. I watched Superstars. All the biggest events happened on this show at the time. Challenge, which aired Sunday mornings, was decent too, but all the big stuff happened on this show. Wrestlers would do all their interviews with Mean Gene on a platform next to the live crowd or talk on their own to the screen in front of a background that promoted them. The matches were usually squashes but sometimes you would see 2 mid carders square off in the main event. There were also interview shows that usually resulted in violence thus setting up a feud. These segments ranged from Pipers Pit, The Body Shop, The Flower Shop, The Snake Pit, The Brother Love Show, The Funeral Parlor, and The Barber Shop. I don't recall any titles changing hands on this show. That usually happened at pay per views and Saturday Nights Main Event.


I found the movie Judas Kiss excellent. Carla Gugino's performance was extraordinaire, probably her best in her career. Her facial expressions in many scenes, were unbelievably true to character, and they were exploited to its best by Director Gutierrez. All actors and actresses were very good in their performances. Emma Thompsom was, as usual, marvelous. Her acting capabilities are way above what would be required for this character, so she actually enhances it in the movie.

The story, although sometimes over-intricate, is kept entertaining and pointed towards the end. Very, very good. A movie not to be missed. A story well weaved and brilliantly directed. Quality of film, excellent.


In this 4th Child's Play film, Chucky gets lucky. It's very funny and there are some enjoyable parts. Very good direction. Not as bad as it could be. The best one in the series since the first. Three stars out of four.


I am surprised that this, well above average 80's comedy scores only a 5.2 from all the IMDB voters. Dan Ackroyd does his usual satirical turn as a con who seizes a great opportunity to steal a contract from his prisons physician. He retreats to California to start his work giving advice on a radio show pretending to be the infamous Dr Lawrence Baird. The only person that knows he's an imposter is the drunken priest (Walter Matthau) who comes along to be pampered by Ackroyd's new found wealth having blakmailed him. Charles Grodin throws in a good supporting performance too. For its genre I think this film deserves the same crediblity as 'Ferris Bueller' or 'Trading Places'. 7.5 / 10


Clearly an hilarious movie.

It angers me to see the poor ratings given to this piece of comic genius

Please look at this for what it is, a funny, ridiculous enjoyable film. Laugh for christ sake!


Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.

These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema.


My taste in films continues to astound me and probably infuriate readers of my reviews but to each their own and I have a weak spot for crazy horror, slasher flicks and See No Evil happens to be exactly that and more!! I think that the biggest mistake made by producers and film makers of this film is that they hype it as a WWE film and 'starring' KANE. WWE might have a big following but it's a very, very specific group that follow the incredibly cheesy and (sorry folks) kind of trailer park 'sport' and those who don't love it HAATTTE IT!! It would make them steer clear of an otherwise typical gory slasher flick that people would come out in droves to see. See No Evil doesn't break ANY new horror ground, it's exactly play by play typical horror with some over the top, horrific bloody scenes that honestly make your screen crawl. They really drive it home and go for gratuitous violence just cause. There is no psychological aspect exactly although being chased by this monster has some fear elements to it.

KANE (the wrestler) also known as Glen Jacobs plays religiously and physically tortured man Jacob Goodnight. He's the ultimate cross between Leatherface, and Jason Voorhees. He's not an original killer and even his kills don't really go for the unique or original with the major exception of choking a girl to death by forcing her to swallower her cell phone...yeeeeah!! He does a good job and the man is legitimately enormous!! He stands at 7 feet tall and without any special effects is monstrous!! Tiffany Lamb, Penny McNamee, Samantha Noble, Michael J. Pagan, Luke Pegler, Christina Vidal, Rachael Taylor all play the typical group of 'think they are invincible' partying teens who will unwillingly become victim to the serial killer. The story is that in exchange for a month off their detention sentence for petty crimes ranging from theft to drug possession, they are sent to an old hotel to do 'community service ' by fixing it up. Turns out a serial killer lives upstairs and he's removing his victims eyes to cleanse them of their sins. Luke Pegler stands out as a scum bag who in the end becomes a hero of sorts even saving his ex-girlfriend who he used to beat up on. The rest of them all play their perspective roles quite well but it isn't a great stretch of acting ability.

Sadly Porn director...yes PORN...Gregory Dark, does a good job putting together the modern day slasher flick. He even goes into a bit of history with the killer and although his back story is not unique either, in fact it's a little stale it's still interesting enough. And in the few shots where the film goer is actually seeing through the killer's eyes, it's interesting to hear the voices and see things distorted like he does. He throws in the obligatory soft core nude shot, and the grotesque, blood soaked scenes and turns everything up a notch. It fits nicely and for a horror fan like myself it's entertaining. Kane's serial killer is horrifying and he stalks them all down with brutal intelligence and a silent horror. The film is being panned and crapped on and I don't blame anyone because it's pretty crappy but isn't that the point?? It's a horror film and I thought it was exactly what it should be. It made me jump, it made me cringe, it even made ME turn away at several parts...impressive by any standards. It's entertaining, with a decent story, and plenty of set up to serialize See No Evil until the 15th installment if they wanted to and I say bring it on!! It's true the film is full of plot holes, laughable details but the deadly gore and horror over rides it all. It all comes down to do you love horror films?? Really love them?? If yes then you'll think this is a terrific slasher...if not...you'll hate it...plain and simple. 8.5/10


This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!!


This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the 'once saved always saved' doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.

If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word 'rapture' mentioned.


The DVD jacket in which this movie came describes it as 'uplifting and humorous.' Those are not the words I would have chosen - not by a long shot. I would choose a word like 'sombre,' sometimes even 'depressing.' Which isn't to say that it's a bad movie. It's actually a pretty good movie, featuring good performances from the leads, with enough uncertainty throughout about what's going to happen at the end that you keep watching. The uncertainty comes from the structure of the movie - it seems to revolve around Ellen's reminiscences of her mother's slow death from cancer, as she is interviewed by the DA. So, we know from the start that something suspicious happened at the end - the questions are 'what?' and 'who?'

Renee Zellweger was very good as Ellen - the somewhat resentful daughter who has to give up her life and job in New York to return home to care for her sick mother. Ellen evolves through the movie - moreso than any other character - as she learns to deal with both the strengths and weaknesses of her parents. Her relationship with her father (William Hurt) is quite interesting. My initial impression was that they were quite close, but the warts in the relationship start to show after a while. Hurt was effective as the detached husband - detached not in an uncaring way, but in the sense of being unable to cope with what's happening to his wife, and seeking escape from it in various ways. Finally, Meryl Streep as the cancer-stricken Kate was very convincing in the role, seeking to live out what remains of her life in the most fulfilling way possible, then dealing with the anger she feels at her increasing debilitation. In a way, watching a family deal with this kind of crisis reminded me a little bit of 'Ordinary People,' although this movie was far less emotionally intense. So, not 'uplifting and humorous' (with all due respect to whoever wrote the synopsis on the DVD jacket) but very good in its own way. 7/10


What a wasted cast.

This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.

Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.

The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.

This is self absorbed tripe.

I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment.


666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.


'Read My Lips' tells of a strange symbiosis which develops between a plain, socially maladroit female office worker (Devos) and her workplace trainee, a crude excon (Casel). As the film fleshes out this unlikely duo down to their ids they become embroiled in a chilling merging of the minds, each using the other for their own selfish reasons with an extraordinary outcome. Good stuff for anyone into character-driven films with strong psychodramatic undercurrents. In French with easy to read subtitles and good translation. (B+)


These cartoon writers are unrelenting with their corny (and fun) puns. The first shot we see in here is an island prison with the following written above its big gates: 'Alka-Fizz Prison - No Noose Is Good Noose.' Inside the prison, the first sign we see is 'Welcome: have a seat.' They then show an electric chair.

Corny gives way to clever, however, as our favorite wolf is seen behind bars. With pen in hand, he literally draws a door next to him and then escapes through it! In no time, he has criss-crossed the United States, zipped up through Canada and is in the northern part of that country. It's there we see the Canadian Royal Mounted Police and, of course, our hero Droopy, known here as 'Sgt. McPoodle.' He has the assignment of catching the at-large criminal from Alka-Fizz. So, with his trusty little blue horse, he goes out in the heavy snow to track down the wanted wolf.

From that point, we get the normal story: Droopy always being a step ahead of the wolf, no matter what the latter does....and both characters are involved in some wild and very funny sight gags. Droopy even pops out of an eagle's egg on top of a mountain. There is nowhere the wolf can go - or do (plastic surgery!) to escape the intrepid 'Sgt. McPoodle.' Nobody, by the way, in the history of cartoons perhaps has more exaggerated reactions, either, than this wolf each time he sees his nemesis! His screams, facial and body stretched out in horror each time is a big part of the sight gags.

You'd think this one-joke cartoon would get monotonous but it doesn't. It's more good stuff from Tex Avery and the gang, just one of 24 cartoons in the 'Complete Theatrical Collection' DVD with wonderful-looking restored visuals.


Whoever likened this one to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK certainly knew whereof he spoke. He might, as well, have likened it to some of the adventures of the pulp heroes that followed. 'Kay Hoog' reminds one more than a little of both Lamont Cranston (The Shadow) and Clark Savage (Doc Savage). (The Shadow, quintessential man of mystery- and the very first 'Dark Knight'- was also thought to be one Kent Allard. If one were to take Savage's first name first and add to it the Kent, you end up with- voila- Clark Kent. Funny, innit?) Like Indiana Jones, Hoog isn't above pilfering the artifacts of an ancient civilization (though his thefts are often more blatant and less 'charmingly roguish' than Jones's). Unfortunately, this two-parter is a far cry from subsequent serials (from any era) in terms of overall quality. One of the first indications that something is amiss vis a vis the cinematic storytelling is a scene where desperados on horseback, quite literally breathing down his neck, simply watch as Hoog escapes their clutches in a hot air balloon. Why they don't bother to shoot down the balloon is just one of the many movie-making mysteries that plague these two films.

The second half of this two-parter is even worse than the first. Granted, this was one of the first ever serials and, as such, should be cut a bit of slack- but there are limits, even, to tolerance. (At one point, the capture of the hero is effected not on screen, but in the narration itself! Talk about cutting corners...) Fritz Lang happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers to ever make films; unfortunately for those of us who admire most of what he did, THE SPIDERS is a bitter pill indeed to swallow...


The film is not visually stunning in the conventional sense. It doesn't present a series of pretty pictures. Instead it is a visually interesting film. It forces the viewer to constantly process or perhaps imagine the context of the various shots. This sort of thing is easy to try but hard to succeed at. The film refuses to use the crutch of a genre to help the less than fully engaged viewer get what's going on. Instead the film touches on and moves through a number of different genres. The trick to loving the film is being able to enjoy this playfulness. I suspect 99% of North American viewers will just not get it. If you try to pin down the narrative of this film, or the philosophical message, or the symbolist structure, etc. you will waste your time. There are none of these. The film only feints towards these genres and others at times. The only unifying force in the film is Claire Denis's own sense of what fits together. There are so few feature length films that come close to satisfying Kant's description of what art is, namely the enjoyment of the power of judgment itself instead of simply subsuming experiences under concepts. Film usually takes the easy way out and opts for the simpler pleasure of understanding what's happening. Most film is not art. Most film doesn't come close to art. When a film does, as this one does, and is still enjoyable by a large range of viewers, it's something of a miracle. My on negative comment is that at times I find the film too simplistically buying in to the various narrative threads that run through it. The Tahiti father-son narrative, even though it's not exactly conventional, ends up making things a little to clear and simple. It dominates too much.


I went into 'The Closer She Gets' knowing that it was the story of the filmmaker's mother fighting cancer. I expected it to be a very harrowing, depressing movie. And although the subject matter is certainly emotionally wrenching, the remarkable thing about this movie is the positive message it sends. It shows a family's total dedication to meet the challenge of cancer together. They refuse to lose faith in each other, even in the darkest moments.

The most moving moments to me are when this faith is revealed. Little comments that the mother and the family make to each other that reveal her (and their) will to survive, and their defiant emphasis on love and family togetherness. In this way it is an uplifting and profoundly hopeful film. We should all be so lucky as to be surrounded by family like this in times of serious illness.


Read the book, forget the movie!


Comparing this movie to anything by Almodovar is an insult to Almodovar. The best thing I can say about it is it tries desperately to be like an Almodovar movie and fails miserably. The script is dreadful, the characters are one-dimensional, and the performances are the quality of high-school drama (except Marcia Gay Harden's, which is pretty good, given the material she has to work with). Furthermore, the cinematography does absolutely nothing to convey the whimsical beauty of Gaudi's architecture or the infectious charm of Barcelona. If you enjoy the grit, pathos and dark, quirky comedy of Almodovar's movies, you'll find none of them here. Spend your money on something other than this waste of celluloid.


blows my mind how this movie got made. i watched it while i worked at home writing emails and answering the phone -- i ONLY watched it because i hoped the 'revenge' part would be good. needless to say, the revenge and the forced plot twists were not worth the emails during which they were watched. in fact, i'm not even sure what happened at the end any more. the acting was as bad as re-enactment scenarios on the 'FBI Files' show -- by far, the worst re-enactments (really only 'Arrest and Trial' can possibly be as bad at re-enactments). i didn't even know that the leading man was in Third Eye Blind until i looked the movie up here on IMDb, but its obvious why he hasn't made any movies since. i hope he is a good singer.


This movie moves and inspire you, it's like you are one of the family. Just to see and witness life during the depression era, makes you feel humble and grateful. Jonathan Silverman delivered well, so convincing and very witty! A must see for Teens!


If you're a sane person and you have seen films before then you cannot tolerate this piece of idiocity for more than 20 minutes. And if you do stay there longer then it won't be because you'd expect akshay or paresh (not govinda please!) but because you value your money too much and you want at least a short nap on the plush seating in the multiplex in return of the money they robbed you off! Its hard to believe that the director who gave us a cult film like HeraPheri can fall to such levels.. alright he's repetitive but now he's coming out of all third rate storied and expects us to laugh because he's brought in Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar...!No sir this ain't going to work now.. especially with this stupid script of yours!Even comedy films can have meaningful scripts (Lage Raho Munnabhai anyone?).

Govinda doesn't have much to do so can't comment..Akshay Kumar was boring, Paresh Rawal cracked some of the worst joke possible.Lara Dutta had real scope for acting in this one but she fails miserably...the only high point of the film (possibly) is Tanushree's acting!But she's there only for the first 10 minutes.

I don't think this film is worth any more space... (probably not even this much!). So final warning- don't watch it!


I have just seen this delightful classic again after many years, the next to last film directed by Henry Cornelius, who died three years later at the age of only 45 (the same age at which the film's male star Larry Harvey was also to die in 1973). Three future directors were in the crew: Jack Clayton (Associate Producer), Guy Green (cinematographer), and Clive Donner (editor). This film is based upon the autobiographical story 'Goodbye to Berlin' by the well-known British author Christopher Isherwood, which was first turned into a play by John van Druten, then made into this film, then turned into a musical, 'Cabaret', and finally filmed as 'Cabaret', which brought the amazing Liza Minelli to world attention, with her voice which can shatter a glass at the distance of a mile. Isherwood appears as a character in the film under his own name. He was gay, but in those days that was illegal and could land him in prison, so he disguises his proclivities under the description of being what he calls 'a confirmed bachelor'. This is the key to his Platonic relationship with the wildly eccentric, wacky, promiscuous, ever-cheerful and thoroughly unique character whom he calls Sally Bowles. The portrait of Sally Bowles in this film is a tour-de-force by the young Julie Harris, who sweeps every scene into a magical and captivating web of sparkling personal charm. What a vehicle for an actress with plenty of charm of her own! It is one of the great cinematic performances of the 1950s. Isherwood is played to perfection by the young Lawrence Harvey, in a finely-judged performance which never allows the comedy to go over the edge, and even the moments of farce bordering on slapstick remain somehow 'almost believable'. Larry is so funny at portraying a wimpish hypochondriac. What an irony, considering the total lack of hypochondria shown by his bravery and stoicism in the last year of his life as he died from terminal stomach cancer and behaved with such dignity and lack of complaint. I knew him well in the last three years or so, and he was a generous, warm, and modest person. He adored his little girl Domino, now alas also tragically dead.This film was his finest early performance, to be followed by his spectacular work in 'Room at the Top' (1959), 'Summer and Smoke' (1961) and 'The Manchurian Candidate' (1962). Larry was often undervalued in his lifetime because he was too handsome, was often cast as a cad, and glamour boys are not always accepted as good actors, but many of the finest actresses played opposite him, and they were in no doubt of his abilities, and he was a strong lead in many of the most important films of his time. If he had lived beyond middle age, he would have gone from strength to strength and become a 'grand old man' of the screen. Sitting in his house in Hampstead one day, he gave me a glass of his usual white wine from a huge barrel which he had brought from some foreign cellar. I said he always gave me such delicious wine, what was it? He proudly answered that it was a Sancerre which he had chosen himself at the vineyard in France and had shipped over specially. He then added with extreme wistfulness: 'You know, I've been waiting for four years for someone to comment on it and ask me what it is, and you are the first person who has ever done so.' What mattered to him was to be recognised for having taste in wine,and his more glamorous friends had denied him that satisfaction. In this film, Anton Diffring gives a touching early performance as an earnest young man (later he was to have to play Nazi officers far too much, poor fellow), and the young Shelley Winters plays a rich German Jewish girl, in her usual noisy but effective manner, but it was not too difficult, as she was a noisy Jewish girl herself anyway. This film has such an air of joie de vivre about it, that it is pure delight.


I watched this film with a group of friends at the 1999 Melbourne International Film Festival and no-one had a good word for it.

I happen to love Bluegrass and Country Music so it's not as if I'm unsympathetic to the subject matter. But the problem is that at heart it's a very conservative movie- little more than a filmed Mills and Boon story. A bodice-ripper of the most simple-minded and soppy kind.

It's not just that the love story at its heart, that between Reece and Dr. Lily Penleric is more than a tad unbelievable. (Why any male would be attracted to the nostril-flaring man-devouring Lily is beyond me, and frankly, Mike Harding as Reece seems to be just going through the motions).

It's simply that the whole movie is too tame and well-mannered for its own good. There is precious little danger, dirt or drama. Sure there's a moment of 'excitement' involving a school run by Lily's younger sister, but this whole episode is funnier than it is dramatic (it's just so poorly written and acted). And the movie betrays its conservative agenda in the manner in which this subplot is resolved.

As for good old Reece Kinkaid (now, what's wrong with a name like Eberneezer Bumpass?) I ask you! Is the ending of this film believable? Fitting in with the character this film had earlier constructed? I think not...


I agree with everything people said on this one but I must add that the soundtrack is probably the WORST one I have ever heard my entire life! There are actual vocals during times when you are supposed to be listening to the actors talk! And the vocals are like a broadway version of Danzig singing, 'The darkness of the forest! Oh the darkness of the dark, dark forest!' or something else so unthreatening. The singer has a terrible vibrato and has been recorded with a treble-y microphone over some synthed-up string section and fake drum beats. It's horrible!!

Yes, the male leads are awful. So are the female ones. This is one bad case of gender stereotyping - it's so bad! Everything they say revolves around being a male or a female, just playing up the stereotypes to the max. Makes me sick. Soooo boring!!!

The children were so echoey in their lines, you couldn't understand them. And why do female ghost children always wear cute little bows in their hair, pretty blue dresses and long hair? And ghost boys always wear clean cut slacks with cute little shiny blond hair? Not scary - STUPID.

Daddy's face was way too blemish free and clean to be that of a man living in a cave. Nice beard and bangs, pa. Did you perfectly cut those with a knife yourself or did you stroll into town and go to the salon?

Stupid movie.


Seeing this movie always reminds me of what I remember summer being like, God! such a long time ago. The entire scene involving the 'overnight', from the canoe procession to the end of the trip, is precious, and Tripper's story about the homicidal maniac is urban legend right out of my youth. A highly entertaining movie, made many times better by the awful sequels that followed.


This movie was so awful, so boring, so badly miscast -- it took a lot of work to make what should have been a sure thing into such a travesty. I love Lucille Ball, but she absolutely stunk in this movie. Too old, couldn't sing, sounded like a truck dumping gravel even when NOT singing -- and the biggest sin of all -- SHE WASN'T FUNNY. EVEN A LITTLE. The studio shot themselves in the foot with this one, and for ruining what should have been a fabulous screen version of a fabulous stage musical, some other body parts deserve to have been wounded as well -- or perhaps they were already lacking those parts. That might explain it. But for Lucy to think she was right for a part that required SINGING -- well, that's the saddest thing of all. It's a very good thing to know your limitations. Even a legend can't come out of a stinker like this and still smell like a rose.


Korean 'romance' about the owner of a camera store who is diagnosed with a fatal disease. As he goes about his daily routine and prepares for the end he becomes acquainted with a young girl who is a customer. A friendship and romance grows, eve though neither expresses any sort of affection for the other. Good film is unlike anything you are likely to see remade in America simply because the studios would insist that the 'couple' act on their feelings. He will not say anything because he doesn't have that long to live, she won't because its not the thing thats done and he is not responding as she thinks he should. Of course its much more complex than I'm making it out to be and in all honesty its the sort of thing that you should discover for yourself. Is it a great film? No, but it is a good one that will move you emotionally. The final lines of the film still haunts me: 'I always knew that love would fade like a photograph - but you will remain in my heart as you are in my last moment. Thank you and goodbye'. It may seem odd out of context but with in the context of the film it is very moving.


When I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole 'i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind'-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again.


This movie is a fantastic movie. Everything about it in my opinion was top notch from the acting to the directing. I know Mr. Garfield was blacklisted in the 1950's but the majority of his other films are on video if not DVD. That being the case,why isn't this one? A friend recorded it off of TCM for me but to have it on DVD would be great. For special features they could have say a Marine historian talk about the battle and if Mr. Schmid's wife or son are still alive they could be interviewed as well. Anyway this is a great movie and I highly recommend it.If it ever is put out hopefully it won't be colorized. Colorizing it would in my opinion just ruin the whole effect of the film. The battle scene was quite realistic as far as a 1945,film would go. Mr. Garfield did a superb job of portraying Mr. Schmid. Some actors might have been tempted to overact the part of Mr.Schmid's disability but I feel he got it just right. I sincerely hope they come out with this movie on DVD someday as a tribute to the courage of Al Schmid and all the other marines who sacrificed so much for us in World War Two.


Killer Flood: The Day the Damn Broke: 1/10: Finally a movie whose title is spoiler proof. Even by the low standards of disaster movies, excuse me allow me to correct myself, even by the low standards of made for TV disaster movies this is truly awful. Where do I begin?

The dam modeler may have once seen a photo of a dam but I doubt it. Most dams, especially large ones that generate electricity have oh I don't know a power plant nearby, some sluice gates for water to run through, heck even a high tension electrical wire or two.

The dam is also somewhat understaffed. Two, count them, two employees staff the entire dam, all three shifts. And the employees were apparently imported from a clichéd ridden world war two film, as they heroically and rather needlessly have long eulogized death scenes complete with photos of grandchildrenn floating by. Heck one of them manages to get shot by the dam itself in a way that defies description.

The special effects consist of flowing water superimposed on photo's of the town in a method that makes a sixties Godzilla film look like the Matrix. A three-year-old drawing with a blue crayon on the film stock would have yielded better results. Since the disaster money shots are worthless how is the rest of the film?

Needless to say the script and acting follow the special effects lead. This is no diamond in the rough. This is the rough. So is it a guilty pleasure? Killer Flood is awful enough to generate some laughs and the film itself has that earnest incompetence that makes a good cult classic, but bad disaster films need to age like a fine wine. (Avalanche, The Swarm, Meteor) It is also doubtful that Michelle Green hiding from the flood in a dumpster with a golden retriever will ever match the great Henry Fonda being pelted by raisins that are supposed to be killer bees. Check back with me in 2024.


It's really too bad that John Candy wasted his skills on so many horrible films (Delirious, Wagons East, Who's Harry Crumb?, etc.. This one has maybe a few chuckles, but it's mostly just really bad one-liners and dumb physical stuff. Let's honor this comedian's memory by remembering things like Planes, Trains & Automobiles and Uncle Buck.


Got this off of usenet, so I wasn't prepared for the heavy (and I do mean EXCEPTIONALLY heavy) religious theme. Not that I'm one of Satan's disciples or anything, but it was very heavy handed.

On top of that, the acting stunk. It might be because they had to get good little boys to play bad little boys, but it didn't work.

There was some pretty cool filmmaking involved, so any fan of directorial style might want to check it out, but be ready with the fast forward buttons.

There was some sloppiness to the editing. In particular, a black Mustang (probably a representation of Satan?) squares off against a white 240Z. Wheels spin, camera changes, and whattya know, that white 240Z is transmogrified into a white Civic.

I gave up early on, so I can't vouch for the moral impact of it. But I would like to point out that this sort of film is totally preaching to the choir. If the director/writer/producer was trying to bring religion to the unwashed streetracing masses, they went about it all wrong. I think I'd rather watch an adult diaper commercial than listen to a steely-gazed bible thumper rant about Jesus' dying for us. Yawn.


I really wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more.


What is left of Planet Earth is populated by a few poor and starving rag-tag survivors. They must eat bugs and insects, or whatever, after a poison war, or something, has nearly wiped out all human civilization. In these dark times, one of the few people on Earth still able to live in comfort, we will call him the All Knowing Big Boss, has a great quest to prevent some secret spore seeds from being released into the air. It seems that the All Knowing Big Boss is the last person on Earth that knows that these spores even exist. The spores are located far away from any living soul, and they are highly protected by many layers of deadly defense systems.

The All Knowing Big Boss wants the secret spores to remain in their secret protected containers. So, he makes a plan to send in a macho action team to remove the spore containers from all of the protective systems and secret location. Sending people to the location of secret spores makes them no longer a secret. Sending people to disable all of the protective systems makes it possible for the spores to be easily released into the air. How about letting sleeping dogs lie?!

The one pleasant feature of ENCRYPT is the radiant and elegant Vivian Wu. As the unremarkable macho action team members drop off with mechanically paced predictable timing, engaging Vivian Wu's charm makes acceptable the plot idea of her old employer wanting her so much. She is an object of love, an object of desire -- a very believable concept!

Fans of Vivian Wu may want to check out an outstanding B-movie she is in from a couple years back called DINNER RUSH. DINNER RUSH is highly recommended. ENCRYPT is not.


A small pleasure in life is walking down the old movies aisle at the rental store, and picking stuff just because I haven't seen it. A large pleasure is occasionally taking that movie home and finding a small treasure like this playing on my screen.

Long before Elia Kazan turned himself into a brand cranking out only notable movies (not good ones), he made this better than average drama. Watching it you begin to notice how many decent, good or nicely observed scenes have accumulated. Contrast that with his later films where the drama is writ large... preferably large, and unsubtle, and scandalous. Kazan was eventually more of a calculating promoter than a director. (um. No thanks)

His future excesses are hinted at here only in the plot. The plague is coming! But here's an atypical Richard Widmark playing a family man in 1951 and avoiding most of the excesses of that trope; here's an almost watchable Barabra bel Geddes, with her bathos turned way down (well, for her); they're a couple and they share some nicely-written scenes about big crises and smaller ones. Here's an expertly directed comic interrogation with a chatty ships-crew; here's a beautiful moment as a chase begins at an angular warehouse and a flock of birds shoots overhead punctuating the moment. These are the small-scale successes a movie can offer in which a viewer can actually recognize life; something Hollywood, in its greed, now studiously avoids. These are the moments that make me go to the movies and enjoy them. It's a personable, human-scaled film, not the grotesque, overscaled production that he and others (David Lean) will later popularize, whose legacy is still felt in crap as varied as Pirates of the Caribean and Moulin Rouge.

I just watched it twice and I'll be damned if I could tell you what Jack Palance is seeking in the final scenes, but it doesn't seem that important to me as a viewer. This reminds me of both No Way Out a Poitier noir with Widmark as the villain, and Naked City, which you should really get your hands on.


'The China Syndrome' launched a whole string of films about the potentially devastating effects of misused nuclear power, a black cloud of paranoia that would hang over America for much of the Reagan years. It's a well-made and effective drama, given an extra punch by its high-power stars, notably Jack Lemmon who plays a senior official of the nuclear power plant who suffers a crisis of conscience. But one can't help but think that it was the serendipitous timing of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident that occurred just a couple of weeks after this film's release that has given it its lasting appeal as a classic from the 70s. As watchable as it is, it's certainly no classic.

With a red-headed Jane Fonda as a news reporter and a bearded Michael Douglas as her camera man (and the film's producer, by the way).

Grade: B+


This documentary focuses on the happenings in Gothenburg 2001. In swedish media the demonstrators where pictured as criminals that stood for anarchy and violence. This movie shows that there not, actually they are intelligent, articulate people that has something to say - And says it by the force of bricks. They believe in a better world, a world where people can think and say what they want - without being aimed at. But are their beliefs of having the possibility of changing the society realistic? I think not.

This documentary gives us enlightenment in the issues of greed, capitalism and the future it might bring. It is a great documentary that is not propaganda, because it is not shown as what they say is right. Everything it shows is what some individuals think and it is up to the viewer to decide if what they do and stand for is right or wrong.

I have heard many people that labels this a propaganda and therefor chooses not to view it, I think they are making a bad decision because even if you sympathize with the police or the demonstrators belief, all you get is more facts to rely on, for example the kid that got shoot says that he thinks that it is good to throw a brick through a McDonalds window because it is the step between thinking and acting as you think.

Overall this movie freaked me out because you cannot really dismiss the facts that the few policemen, that fought violence with violence, did not get convicted or even detained in custody even however the proof of them throwing bricks at the demonstration march (and in some cases beating people with truncheon, even though they are lying on the street without making resistance) where as good as it gets.

Rating: 8/10 - Very good, but not best!


This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).

I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews.

Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?

I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...

Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...


The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.


Because that's what Hell Ride pretty much is. Larry Bishop and Tarantino partying on the Weinstein's money with the promise to deliver a movie sometime down the line. I'm all for fake boobage and booze as much as the next guy but did we really need the movie? Really there's nothing worse than the reheated second-hand leftovers of an old trend. And I'm not even talking about 70's grindhouse cinema because Hell Ride has none of the raw and unpolished feel of the era it purports to pay homage to. No, this is slick and glossy MTV Hollywood through and through. The old trend I'm talking about is the self-consciously pseudo-hip quirky cinematic world where Tarantino meets Guy Ritchie and Robert Rodriguez. All three guys were at least talented and found success for a reason. Hell Ride is just a second-hand copy, fickle and uninspired, polished to the max when it should be raw, the 'supercool' aspect coming off forced and silly.

There's no reason for example why such a simple and utterly inane story has to be told in convoluted, back-and-forth in time fashion. It's just a post-Tarantino quirk. There's also no reason why the dialogues have to be so mind-numbingly pointless, people flapping their gums while saying NOTHING: at least when Travolta was talking about cheeseburgers in Pulp Fiction it felt fresh. Dialogues here amount to little more than pseudo-macho posturing. There's also no reason why a grating rock'n'roll guitar has to twangle aimlessly over the entire movie. Perhaps the lowest Hell Ride hits is when it tries to be quasi-existential. There's a hilarious dream/illusion scene in the desert where Bishop eats peyote and sees colours. I was half-expecting an old Indian to come out and offer nuggets of wisdom.

The only saving grace of this abysmal turd is the boobage and Vinnie Jones' monologue about his wings tattooes (and maybe some of the desert exterior shots). Lots of boobage and hot scantily clad babes. Now that's something I can get behind but a movie they don't make. Everything else is just an empty shell, an imitation of other infinitely more talented imitators.


My Take: Even splendid underwater photography can salvage a familiar script and paper-thin characters.

For those who haven't already got enough of the FREE WILLY pictures, FLIPPER might serve up a decent rental. Others are (heavily) suggested to stay away. Although FLIPPER is harmless affair, it hardly showcases anything for the adult audience (unless it's your first time to see a dolphin).

A remake of a 1960's TV show and film, FLIPPER may have sound like a good idea back then: A dolphin charms the life of boy and a girl, they help ave the environment by first getting rid of toxic wastes thrown in on the sparkling waters of the Florida Keys, and at the same time, battle a shark and a salty sea baddie who happens to be the one responsible for the toxic dumping and also happens to hate dolphins. But even for the 90's, especially if an eerily similar film like FREE WILLY was a recent hit, FLIPPER is just another harmless yet occasionally empty summer splash movie for the kids. Although the animals (this, in case, is the main dolphin, a clumsy pelican and a realistic-looking hammerhead shark, typecast as the villain) and the pristine underwater cinematography steal the show, there's nothing much in FLIPPER to steal from anyway.

The story is completely predictable, something than nowadays even a 6-year old may find evident. The (Human) cast, led by a pre-LORD OF THE RINGS Elijah Wood and an out-of-work Paul Hogan, have rarely anything to do but stand around and look pretty. Their acting skills, whatever they may be to this movie, is rarely revealed on screen, unless you consider the 'acting' talents of cheerful Bottlenose Dolphin. I guess not trying to recommend FLIPPER as mindless family entertainment won't be fair, but anyone over the age of 10 (No, make that 8), are better off renting or buying something else. Besides, the film is about 95 minutes tops. That might just give you enough time to something elsewhere without worrying about your kids. That alone might be worth the rental.

Rating: ** out of 5.


I have loved this movie ever since it's debut in 1981! I have lost track of how many times I have seen it! It never fails to make me laugh or cheer me up if i am feeling down. The three leads are fantastic and the script is priceless, plus how do you not get nostalgic hearing the theme song? I think I quote this movie without realizing it. I basically know the entire script, so when someone is watching it for the first time I have to hold back saying something about how funny the next line it. I can't even narrow it down, although, Sir John's character probably gets the most memorable ones. The famous 'I'll alert the media' when Arthur announces his intention to take a bath is still priceless, but the list is truly endless. The scene's at Arthur's soon to be fiancé's father's house are a scream, particularly his interactions with the moose. Do yourself a favour and see this movie!


I have to admit, I picked this movie just for the cast, and while Sutherland, Scacchi, and Prochnow were - as usual - great performers, the rest of the movie was such a let down. It feels like it was put together by a team of adolescents with low level scripts, that is, scripts lacking any depth, awful photography and editing, and hilariously lousy score! I can't believe I was able to watch this seemingly long movie until the end... the sad thing is, this could have actually been a great political thriller given the interesting plot. All the potential was there to make it a hit; that is, two main ingredients are there: a great story of national conspiracies, and a great core cast (even though many other actors are pretty much soap opera quality). But maybe I'm missing something; until then it's still not worth more than a 3 in my opinion.


I was really disappointed by this movie. Great actors in it, and potentially a great plot, but it just seemed to limp along.

Charlize Theron was masterful in her role and beautiful, but it seemed like 90% of her on-screen work was in car chases done with Austin Minis. Product placement gone wrong, so very wrong.

The direction seemed off, too. Edward Norton is the bad guy, and it was so obvious right from the start. Every time the camera would pass over him, it would linger too long and Norton would grimace or something. C'mon, Hollywood, give us a little credit! It's okay to surprise us with a plot twist without having to telegraph it.

Sorry, but this movie was just below average. I have always been one to appreciate the work and talent that goes into a movie, but this one just didn't have it.


In his directorial debut, Denzel Washington takes a true story that also happens to be a very difficult story and brings it to the screen with an honesty that we have come to expect from Washington's acting efforts, but now we see this touch as a director.

Recently we have seen some of the disastrous results of kids who have fallen through the cracks of public protection. This story tells of a nightmare existence that leaves terrible scars but suggests the triumph of the human spirit in the end.

We can nit pick on some first effort problems with too many close ups and not the best of editing these scenes but the simplicity of other scenes that project such power cannot be understated.

If the academy overlooks this film it will be travesty. This film pulls no punches and goes to the cold hard facts of the story with a purity that usually doesn't transcend from a novel to the screen. This , of course , is a tribute to the Director.

This is a dandy so go see it and tell your friends to go see it too!


I've never watched a file in a language I don't understand just because I wanted to see the movie and I couldn't find it with English subs. I don't know how much I missed but it wasn't much. Probably just specific details which sounds silly until you see the emotional level of this movie and how the characters interact together. I want to mention to The Diceman from Germany there's no reason to feel that he 'sucks' when it comes to commenting on the emotional strength of the film. Like I said, I don't understand Japanese -or at least only the very small amount I came away with from reading the very lengthy novel -pro- bably my favorite all time book which I could not put down & took the next day off from work just to finish reading! I don't know if there's an English dubbed or subbed version but if the film but if there is I'd love to see it. The film was incredible in Japanese anything better is icing of the cake!! Slainte', Maegi


What starts out as generational conflict in this movie, ends in understanding, solemnity and grace. The movie meanders through Europe with the father and the young son cramped in a car over 3000 miles. The cramping forces lifestyles, beliefs and life skills to collide. There's really no clear winner. It all adds up in the end as experience, experience of multiple layers of life. For those interested in understanding Islam, this movie offers a generous and gentle outlook, without being pushy about the agenda. It's a coming of age story for the young son, his dismissive and rebellious nature turning to openness for receiving more ways of life.


It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie.


Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun´s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can´t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn´t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.

1 out of 10 (½ out of *****)


Most of us kids growing up in the 40's or 50's were western buffs but this was one that had escaped me until seeing on the Movies for Men Channel today. I loved the film's story, cinematography as well as the superb casting of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. in the lead roles along with the ever dependable Ward Bond. Apparently this movie was the inspiration for the later television series 'Wagon Train' which featured Bond once again as the boss of the wagon trains heading west. Johnson steals the film with his horse riding skills and it's nice to see an actor doing his own stunts like Ben does in this movie. Other notables include the lovely Joanne Dru as Denver and an early non speaking role for James Arness who later became famous for his Marshal Matt Dillon role in 'Gunsmoke.' If you like films of this genre you can't fail to like this one.


Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your 'Clearing' movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the 'plan-B-ending'. There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.


I remember seeing the very first trailer for Underdog back last March, I also remember at the time smiling to myself ever so slightly. Sure it was a cheesy idea, but I genuinely thought at the time the concept might work, hell it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing Cats and Dogs could it? Then by December and I suddenly remembered the film I realised how likely the film was to suck, the fact it had been delayed in the UK made it seem inevitable it would be terrible, but the horrendous reviews just made me realise it was nigh on impossible for the movie to be any good. Still I swallowed my feelings and went to see the film with a friend today, as I entered my screen I was mortified, it was the very first time I'd be seeing a movie with a friend and being the only two in the screen! Little did I know for what I was about to endure. Underdog to put it blunt is horrendous, it really is. Imagine how bad you could think this movie is and then prepare yourself for a movie even worse, that is just how pathetic the movie is. While it aims to entertain kids it just seems an embarrassing mess that seems to insult kids rather than allow them to enjoy the movie. Matters cannot be helped by the fact that the story is beyond lacklustre, the acting is generally poor, and the movie just feels like an over-long, tired and downright boring Saturday cartoon! After a brief five minutes where I thought the movie might be passable the movie just suddenly seems to die and then limp on towards the already sign posted finale. I'm just amazed the movie was actually ever released, it's an embarrassment to Disney, hell half their straight to video sequels are better than this! What's even more terrifying is the fact the ending leaves room for a sequel!

So lets get onto the acting (cracks knuckles). Okay let me be honest Jason Lee is decent, his voice suits the canine, and had he have been given a decent script he might have made the performance work. However, with such a dodgy script he just seems to flounder. In many ways it reminded me of Bill Murray in Garfield, Murray did what he could with what he had, but what he had wasn't enough to make it passable. Then we get onto the human actors, and well the majority of atrocious. Alex Neuberger plays the friend of Underdog, Jack. My biggest concern is that anybody would even take him seriously in an audition. The scene where he gets to fly with Underdog is perhaps the most cringe worthy scene in the past few years just because his acting is so poor. Not once did I believe he was a real person, in fact part of me is still convinced he was a robot made specially for the movie! James Belushi seems half dead in the film, he has nothing to work with, no decent lines, he just seems to wander around the set waiting to become relevant to the plot, which the writers try to do towards the end but do it in such a poor way its laughable. Thankfully Peter Dinklage is the one redeeming factor of the movie, he is great as Dr Barsinister and seems to be having a laugh in the role. He steals every scene he is in, although that's hardly difficult when he shares screen time with the extremely annoying Patrick Warburton. The rest of the cast are even worse, especially Taylor Momsen, she just needs to end her acting career right now!

Underdog also fails dramatically in terms of delivering anything like a funny scene. When the funniest scene involves Underdog biting a can and causing dog food to explode everywhere you know there is something drastically wrong. This could be easily ignored if the movie had decent action or a good story, alas the movie is even worse in both of these terms. The effects are so ropey that any scene where Underdog flies just seems absurd, and the dog uses his powers to such little effect that you frequently forget he has superpowers. What's the point in making a film about a super dog if the damned dog never appears super? The final fight also verges on embarrassing purely because its ten minutes of nothingness, the dog flies, other stuff happens, some stuff gets chucked about, all of this is irrelevant as this stuff is happening for the sake of stuff happening. The script as well is dodgy at best and downright pain inducingly awful at worst. When someone says 'Look its a plane, no its a bird, no its a frog...', yes you read that right, I just wanted to burst into tears there and then. Actually I wanted to walk out by remained compelled to see whether it could get any lower than that point, this happens near the end so it doesn't thankfully.

Overall Underdog becomes the worst movie of 2008 at this early period, and is actually just as bad as last years Epic Movie. Luckily for Underdog, Meet the Spartans arrives over here soon and I expect that to be even worse. So in case you didn't get the point of my review, avoid the film at all costs, if you want to see a movie with a dog then watch Cats and Dogs, buy a real dog if necessary, just do not see this!


The motion picture was, in all likelihood, made in the year 1930 and released in 1931. I would surmise that talking motion pictures had great difficulty in making the transition from the silent era. Nevertheless, this particular Zane Grey plot appears to be very weak. Also, Gary Cooper was probably just learning to act. The result is something that would not be acceptable by today's standards. For 1931, maybe. For 2004, not acceptable. Some of the actors performed well. Sadly, the Indians always get the short end in these early westerns. They were living on the land long before the white man came, but according to twisted history, they had no right to defend themselves.


I had never heard of this film before a couple of weeks ago, but its concept interested me when I heard it: an American man meets a European woman on his last night in Europe and they spend the night together talking. It sparked my interest, but I never expected it to be this great. Before Sunrise is a masterpiece, and it's also one of the most romantic films on record. To my surprise, it completely lacked the cynicism of the 1990s. It's impossible to really talk too much about it, since there is no real plot, so to speak (although there are plenty of thoroughly interesting things you could talk about; it is sort of like My Dinner With Andre, where there is a conversation, but it's not JUST the conversation that matters), but let me just say, see it. SEE IT!


There are a lot of 'bad' films out there. Tune in to Channel 5 every night of the week and you might just be treated to a daily, shocking effort from one filmmaker or another. There are possibly films that have caused me more pain - were harder to sit through - than this, but in terms of writing, acting, direction, cinematography and the bare basics of cinema Inbetweeners is a truly, truly appalling effort and should be avoided at all costs. The only laugh it gave me was in the behind the scenes documentary on the DVD, in which the film's geeky director Darren Fisher explains how it was his script that attracted the 'talent' to the project! Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

Darren Fisher - Britain's answer to Edward D. Wood Jr.!


This a superb self-contained work that is unconnected with anything before or after. Brat Pack crooning and club exclusivity are not my biscuits of choice, but in this law-free world they make an alluring ambiance. The film is packed with Our Guys, distinctive actors who add distinction to this work with winning performances. The dialogue is a joy. In fact it's a new vernacular. One of the few films that can be watched repeatedly with deepening appreciation.

Highpoints include Billy Idol's British loutishness, Ben London's vulturine brassware, Kyle's squirmishness, and the survey of ad hoc philosophies.


Kar Wai Wong's incredibly impressive romance that is to me, perfect. Set in 1960's Hong Kong. As we are shown, this is set in a turbulent time. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung play Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan. A man and a woman who meet each other in a Hong Kong apartment, in which they both move in. Chow Mo-wan works for a newspaper company. Su Li-zhen Chan is a secretary. Two very different people. Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan create a special bond after they both find out their spouses, constantly away are committing extra-marital trysts. With each other.

The characters of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan are nothing short of amazing. Both Leung and Cheung manage to strike such amazing chemistry with one another, it's better than any Hollywood romance that is put out today. Combined. The film is all about the focus of the two leads and their feelings after the infidelities of their partners. Kar Wai Wong manages to create such strong character development between these two characters, you really start to feel for them. Leung and Cheung are both wildly amazing, are better than any Hollywood pairing shown on the screen today. Combined.

There's nothing much else to describe Fa yeung nin wa other than beautiful, energetic romance that also features a moody, atmospheric piece with gorgeous cinematography. So much elements of this movie help create it to be flawless. As well as Kar Wai Wong and the acting, the cinematography from both Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee is haunting. Beautifully understated. The shots from Kar Wai Wong help makes your mind create a world of it's own. A world that creates these characters. Original, melancholic and nostalgic. This film is incredibly unforgettable.

The costumes created by Kar Wai Wong regular William Chang are absolutely beautiful. Cheung, who wears an elegant, ankle-deep, beautifully patterned dress in every scene. She's a scene-stealer. Her costumes say a lot about her character and an emotion is fitted in all of her dresses colours which are vividly and smartly used. Highly original. Chang, also the production designer creates a brilliant setting for the movies moody piece. Especially with the help of the marvellous music used in scenes and masterful film editing, again by Chang. William Chang seems to be incredibly versatile and is an unsung hero for this movie.

Overall, this movie is one of the best from this millennium. Incredibly compelling and filled with nostalgia. The shots are mesmerising and haunting. Kar Wai Wong somewhat proves to be a master at the top of his game. The acting; music; cinematography; editing; production; costume and direction all help create ONE small, little perfect film. A masterpiece in romance film-making. Visually spectacular. Overall, a masterpiece to film-making. A film that reminds me of old classic Hollywood, was the one that never was. Never forget Fa yeung nin wa. I know I won't.


Michelle Rodriguez is the defining actress who could be the charging force for other actresses to look out for. She has the audacity to place herself in a rarely seen tough-girl role very early in her career (and pull it off), which is a feat that should be recognized. Although her later films pigeonhole her to that same role, this film was made for her ruggedness.

Her character is a romanticized student/fighter/lover, struggling to overcome her disenchanted existence in the projects, which is a little overdone in film...but not by a girl. That aspect of this film isn't very original, but the story goes in depth when the heated relationships that this girl has to deal with come to a boil and her primal rage takes over.

I haven't seen an actress take such an aggressive stance in movie-making yet, and I'm glad that she's getting that original twist out there in Hollywood. This film got a 7 from me because of the average story of ghetto youth, but it has such a great actress portraying a rarely-seen role in a minimal budget movie. Great work.


Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.

Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.

It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.

Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.


Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...

I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.

That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.

Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...

Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.

Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.


The largest crowd to ever see a wrestling event in the US took place at Wrestlemania 6. Over 93,000 people showed up to break the Rolling Stones indoor record, and this event didn't disappoint at all. Maybe the biggest match of all time took place as the Immortal Hulk defended his world title against the Ultimate Warrior. There are over 12 matches in all so you get tons of action


My Take: A goofy, yet imaginative mess.

Keanu Reeves (Yes! That Keanu Reeves) and Alex Winter return as the two punk-rock idiots in this sequel to the time-trotting adventure comedy BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE, now a cult classic. In this sequel, Bill and Ted are given much more to do than travel through time. They might as well travel Heaven and Hell too! During the beginning of this sequel, Bill and Ted are preparing for a 'Battle of the Bands' competition which may make them more famous than ever. Meanwhile, many years in a futuristic civilization, the time-wizard from the first film (the always watchable George Carlin) is running a university praising Bill and Ted's names. There, an evil tyrant (Joss Ackland, from THE HUNT FOR RED October) plots to get rid of the two idiot rock-stars once and for all. So he sends two identical android replicas (In the words of Bill and Ted: Robot Us's) to do the dirty job.

There after, Bill and Ted experience death and must find their way through Hell, with inhabitants that happens to include the duo's worst memories, and then through Heaven in an attempt to get back to earth to save their girlfriends... and their show. Along this whacked-out voyage, they play board games with none other than Death (William Sadler, from DIE HARD 2), reminiscent to a similar moment in the 1957 foreign film classic THE SEVENTH SEAL, aid help from a couple of intelligent alien beings and more.

BOGUS JOURNEY's array of exuberant special effects gimmicks aren't up to to-date standards, and even some of the humor and the for-the-time look and feel are somewhat dated (to be honest, the film also feels like it was released on the wrong year, even for the 90's). But with it's no little lack of imagination and a lively turn by both the performances and direction, BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is fun, imaginative, and yes, bogus.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.


This World War II film, set in Borneo, tries so hard to work on so many levels, it is a shame it fails on all of them.

Nick Nolte is an escaping American who witnesses the executions of his comrades by the Japanese. He wanders deep into the jungles of Borneo, lost. Cue Nigel Havers, who finds Nolte's adopted tribe. Nolte, now looking like Robert Plant, has become his tribe's new king. He defeated a staunch warrior in a bloody battle, and had a telling tattoo on his chest (a dragon). Now before you go out and get a painful tattoo and a one-way ticket to Borneo, things are not going well in Nolteland. Havers wants the tribe's help in fighting the Japanese, who are invading the island. He teaches the natives how to use machine guns, and a whole lot o shooting begins. As the tribe becomes more successful, they run up against a new squadron of Japanese who are not like the others. This squad cannibalizes the villages they conquer in order to keep their strength up (talk about your sushi), and they move through the jungles even quicker than the tribe. Since we know the outcome of the war, we know eventually the tribe triumphs, but with heavy casualties. Here come the spoilers: Havers is injured and returned to 'civilization.' He gives the location of the kingdom and Nolte is captured. Havers then goes through the trouble of releasing Nolte, and the end credits roll.

Milius' direction is certainly adequate, but the screenplay here is rather vague in its motivations. It presents story ideas, then abandons them in order to get to the next story idea. Nolte is awful as the soldier turned king, desperately trying to channel the spirit of Marlon Brando's Colonel Kurtz. He talks about freedom, and the beauty of the jungle, and the richness of his people, and you will not believe for one second the words he utters. He is often unintentionally funny, especially his initial bug out in the jungle, and he spends the rest of the film sounding like a hippie. Nigel Havers spends the movie looking at Nolte like he was Raquel Welch. The vague homosexual undercurrent between the two goes beyond friendship, not quite to sex, and settles into an unspoken relationship that must have had the natives talking.

Havers often stands around and has an internal conflict, repulsed at the tribe's headhunting, but basking in Nolte's attention. His fellow straight laced British servicemen go native faster than the Bounty landing party in Tahiti, but all I saw concerning Borneo is that it is very humid and has lots of green.

The climactic betrayal, where Havers gives away Nolte's location, is completely devoid of any reason. There is not one thought given as to why Havers does this, except to keep the film going. I was angry, when by chance, Havers and Nolte end up on the same ship going to the Philippines, the ship happens to run aground, and Havers runs to the hold to free the freshly shorn Nolte. No goodbye kiss, but Havers says farewell to the king, explaining the title.

If you were fighting a war, and an enemy squadron was eating your allies, would that not freak you out? This elite Japanese squad is not shown enough, although their eating habits are so horrific I would become a conscientious objector right away. The same type of ghostly enemy was handled much better in 'The 13th Warrior.'

Other types of interesting ideas are dropped. What about the fact that then modern technology brings about the deaths of so many backward people? Why did King Nolte let the Brits use his subjects without too much hesitation? Why can't Hollywood find a decent actor to play General Douglas MacArthur?

In the end, 'Farewell to the King' is a letdown, not anchored by a strong lead, and trying to be too many things without thinking and exploring its options. I cannot recommend this one.

This film is rated (PG13) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, some gore, some profanity, some sexual references, and adult situations.


Chapter One: Once Upon a Time At A Table (1941)

In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.

Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)

In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.

Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking

In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.

Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking

In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.

Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table

In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.

The End


This one will get reviews all over the map because it doesn't comfortably fit any mold. It's horror-- but not a splatterfest. It's equal part Suspense as well as Horror-- yet without the usual Hollywood screams and jerky camera.

The feel of the movie is spare and lean with next to no special effects because I think you should listen and watch the faces of the characters.

Forget that Brendan is a graduate of the Buffy universe. That's a red herring. He IS acting here. 'Camp' is a misreading of the tone of this story. Adrienne Barbeau is giving a rock solid performance-- so she must believe the script has something to say. We all know the sorry excuses where the actors plainly don't care anymore and are just waiting for the director to snap 'Cut' and get their paychecks. This is Not the case, here.

Forgive the fact that the bodies begin to fall with almost mondo-funny regularity. I don't think the intent was humorous-- but to keep you off balance.

Think of it less of a Horror 'Movie' and more of a Horror 'Play' on a stage-- that decrepit whitewashed house. Then you might see it's really about paranoia, fear, and spiralling madness set in an isolated someplace, USA.

And it is twisty. Time travel, Mind Control, secret experiments and Nazi's who may NOT be dead. . .yet.

I say rent it and give it a try if you're in the mood for something a little cerebral. This would be a good choice for a Saturday Midnight sit down.


This movie was ridiculous from the start. Let me save you all time from watching this movie. A woman who sells corn liquor to the locals takes in her cousin or nephew and he convinces her to open a café downstairs from her home. She does and she and the cousin become close. There is a scene later where she is locking lips with him. Later, the woman finds out an old boyfriend is coming back from jail and its tense between them, leading to a down and out fist fight in the café. The woman's cousin/nephew is enamored by the man. The ending was awful, the story was awful, and if I could get back the time wasted on this movie, I would appreciate it. A definite skip.


In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.

I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.

At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.

Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.

All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.