Since the past couple of days I'm really hooked on the 'Female Scorpion' series and I keep hitting myself over the head because I waited until now  which is way too long  before purchasing the whole box set. 'Beast Stable' is the third brilliant effort in a row, and the undeniably main trump of this series is how the writers always came up with something entirely new and different for each installment. Never before, or after, has there been an exploitation series that offered so much variety when it comes to story lines, settings, themes and filming styles. The original more or less qualified as a so-called 'Women-in-Prison' flick (but already an atypical one), but you can't possibly categorize parts 2 and 3 as such, since they hardly feature any footage within prison walls. And the overall tone and atmosphere keeps changing with each new episode as well. The first film was harsh and gritty, whereas the second was psychedelic and part three is almost mainly melodramatic. Don't let this last description discourage you, however, as 'Beast Stable' still features more than enough exploitative themes and disturbing footage in spite of the dramatic ambiance. The opening sequence, for example, is downright fantastic. Sasori, still a fugitive from the law, literally chops her way to freedom on the subway when there's no other possibility than to cut off the arm of the persistent policeman that handcuffed her. Her run through the city with the cut-off arm dangling on hers while the credits appear on screen, accompanied by the familiar theme song, is just pure and genuine exploitation gold! The story compellingly continues with our heroine desperately trying to lead an anonymous life in the big city, but the poor thing simply can't escape her past or even new types of agony. Sasori befriends a prostitute, though without exchanging dialog, and takes on a job in a sewing atelier. Her own retarded brother (!) impregnates the prostitute, while Sasori gets in trouble with the local pimping and underground crime network. She cleverly prevents a thug from taking advantage of her body, encounters a former enemy from prison and furiously avenges one of the prostitutes when she gets submitted to a barbaric abortion. Meanwhile, the one-armed cop continues to obsessively prowl the streets, looking for retribution against Sasori. Our multi-talented director Shunya Ito formidably criss-crosses all these story lines to a powerful wholesome and never once loses grip on the visual aspects or ingenious filming style. 'Beast Stable' features some of the most impressive compositions and ingenious camera angles you can imagine, the editing is flawless and the exterior locations are effectively depressing. Those who know Sasori's character a bit are aware that the film seriously lacks memorable dialogs, but this always gets widely compensated with Meiko Kaji's wondrous on screen charisma and menacing grimaces. There's very little sleaze, apart from the aforementioned incestuous sub plot, but the brief flashes of extreme violence are terrific and the twisted ending is almost too brilliant for words. In fact, I think part three might just be the greatest (or at least, my favorite) one of the series so far. My only small and totally irrelevant point of criticism is regarding the ridiculous sounds one of the birds produces when Sasori is locked up in a cage. That bird sounds like a ventriloquist's dummy with stomach cramps.


After reading several good reviews as well as hearing nice things about it by word of mouth I decided to rent Come Undone. I must say I was rather disappointed. The story was hard to follow because the film is set as a series of flashbacks between the present and recent past that are very poorly executed. The characters, despite the actors best efforts are flat and uninteresting. The sex is and nudity are more explicit than they need to be. I've never seen a film where they seemed so unnecessary to the plot. The ending is very anti-climatic and leaves many unanswered questions to a story line that wasn't explained well to begin with. In my opinion, a waste of time.


(Some Spoilers) PRC quickie that has J. Carrol Naish playing Dr. Igor Markoff who's not really Dr. Karkoff but an impostor who took over his identity back in Europe.

The real Dr. Karkoff had a affair with Dr.Markoff's wife that lead to him to murder the real Dr.Markoff and then having his wife Lenore infected with acromegaly that made her look like the 'Elephant Man's' sister. This was done so that no one would ever want to look at her and he could keep Lenore all to himself; but the disturbed Lenore later got even with her insane husband by killing herself.

This nut, the fake Dr. Markoff, then spots Patricia Lawrence, Wanda McKay, one evening at the theater where her father Tony Lawernce, Ralph Morgan, a world famous pianist is giving a concert. Enchanted by the lovely Patricia who's a dead ringer for his dead wife Lenore Dr. Markoff becomes obsessed with her and goes to extreme lengths to marry her even though she's want's nothing to do with him.

After getting ridicules in his efforts to get Patricia to fall in love with him, by sending her flowers with syrupy love notes attached to then as much as five times a day,Tony goes to see the crazed Dr. Mankoff to tell him to stop annoying his daughter. It's then that Tony ends up getting knocked out by the good doctor who has him injected with a dose of acromegaly that turns him into a somewhat unsightly fellow. With his hands and body swelling up and not being able to play his beloved piano Tony is told by his Doctor Dr. Adams,Sam Flint, that the only one who can cure him of that dreadful disease is non other then Dr. Markoff! the person who gave it to him.

The movie has the usual sub-plots with Dr. Markoff's assistant Maxine,Tala Birell, who's also in love with him jealous of the phony doctor making a play for Patricia. There's also Dr. Markoff's hulking butler Glenn Strange who, like his pet gorilla, is just a big clumsy oaf who can't even subdue Maxine who's less the half the size. Strange ends up getting bopped on the head and knocked out cold by Patricia's boyfriend Bobby Blake, Terry Frost. As for the Gorilla he turns out to be but a big hairy wimp when he also tries to do in Maxine and is chased away, and locks himself back up in his cage, by the pet dog Ace. Dr. Markoff in his desperation to get Patricia to marry him promises her to cure her dad only to have her father break out of his chains and in the ensuing struggle with him ends up shooting Markoff dead with his own gun.

There is a happy ending to this whole mess with Maxine, who knew as much about Markoff's cure for acromegaly as he did, injecting Tony with a secret serum that made him as good as new. The movie ends, like it started, with Tony playing the piano to a packed and cheering house at the local theater.


Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of 'Eddie' and 'Marilyn' in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a 'typical' (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.


The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon.'The Legend of Diablo' is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved 'Torched','Live Feed','Bone Sickness' or 'Neighborhood Watch',unfortunately 'The Legend of Diablo' is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** After two so-so outings ('Magnum Force' and 'The Enforcer'), Dirty Harry seems to have regained his stride in 'Sudden Impact,' a gripping thriller that wisely plays to its strengths: the charisma of Clint Eastwood, who also directed, and a story that spends just enough time on exposition and reserves its energy for the big scenes.

For once, the case takes Harry outside his native San Francisco (where he's again in trouble with his superiors for his 'shoot first, ask questions later' tactics), to the hamlet of San Paulo. There, (WARNING: Potential spoiler) a group of lowlifes is being gruesomely murdered, one at a time, by a woman whom they gang-raped years earlier, and whose sister has been in a state of catatonia ever since the attack.

The killer is portrayed by Sondra Locke, and she makes the character of Jennifer Spencer an interesting mix of compassion and cold-bloodedness. Locke's cold eyes and frosty voice, when either trying to comfort her hospitalized sister or dispensing vengeance toward the rapists, are very effective in painting a portrait of a woman wronged whose years of suffering and rage are now beginning to bear deadly fruit.

The rapists are a despicable lot, especially the leader, who has 'psycho nutjob' practically stamped on his forehead, and a lesbian who seems almost one of the guys, despite her anatomical inability to participate. The flashback scenes, while not graphically explicit, are nightmarish enough, and clearly intended to make the audience cheer for Jennifer as she kills her assailants.

Some will dismiss 'Sudden Impact' as trash: a mindless, manipulative revenge tale. On a certain level this is true, but it's well-done trash. What works to the movie's advantage is the strength of the Sondra Locke performance, giving us a complex character whose wounds are more visible in her paintings than in her gestures or speech. What we have here is an action movie with a point of view.

You can take or leave the idea that some wrongs deserve to be punished by any means necessary, but as the mystery behind the slayings becomes clear to Harry (a realization that, wisely, is not spelled out with dialogue), he is presented with a choice -- what to do about a killer whose motivations he can sympathize with but whose conduct he is bound by law to not tolerate. This makes the story more interesting than the usual Dirty Harry fare.

The movie's other redeeming quality is Eastwood's direction. This is, after all, a Dirty Harry movie, and Eastwood knows the character better than anyone else. The movie is directed with style and wit, and edited to give the action scenes a big payoff. Some of the best 'Harry moments' in the entire series are here, including Harry's best-known line, 'Go ahead -- make my day.'

'Sudden Impact' is a movie that has the courage of its convictions in presenting a tale about a despicable crime and the brutal consequences that follow. It is also a riveting detective story, well made and well told. And it is certainly never dull. On those criteria, it succeeds tremendously.


A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.


to make this short and sweet: i hope this movie will not be considered the seminal work for the 'gener-asian' of american film making. the acting was sub-par, relying on stereotypes, raised voices, and exaggerated eye-buggery to convey its message. chris chan park does not delve very deep into the any of his characters, allowing them to remain caricatures of angry/frustrated/distant/uncommunicative asians. these depictions do not make characters mysteriously appealing; it makes them confusing and unsympathetic. i like to think that us asians are more complex than that.

i came out of the movie unconvinced. unconvinced that these characters had a life long, blood-brother like connection with each other to go to the lengths they did to help their buddy out. unconvinced that the main character had anything beyond a superficial attraction to his girlfriend. unconvinced that hard working immigrant parents wouldn't pay for their son's college education. unconvinced that all of the characters were even necessary, i.e.: janet, who is put to bed in the back of the car and quickly forgotten.

the story line, which i actually think had potential, was not allowed to come into its own for two reasons: 1) flat characters for whom i had no sympathy/affinity, 2) the plot is overshadowed by meaningless non-sequitur scenes, such as the seance/donut shop sequence with amy hill which was simply ridiculous and unnecessary.

i commend park for his efforts, as i'm sure it took a lot of hard work to even produce the film, and i'll even give him the benefit of the doubt this time around as a rookie director/screenwriter, but i sincerely hope that next time around he'll go a little deeper. just because the film is one of the first of its kind about the korean american experience, doesn't mean it's automatically good.


A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of

 the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but 'hilarious'? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10


Excellent film that reveals how people are connected to the taken for granted, ordinary beads exchanged during Mardi Gras. The film is much more than a commentary on globalization. In fact, it humanizes the workers in China, the owner of the factory, the bead distributor in New Orleans, and even the revelers in New Orleans. What stands out the most is the director's ability to tell a tricky story with complicated details in such a simple and seductive way. His amazing access to the factory is another aspect that's intriguing and I only wish I knew how he got inside. It's a beautiful story without sentimentality or guilt associated with it, and the conclusion provides hope without leaving people feeling alienated.


The best thing I can say about this film is that it is well-paced. It did not fall flat. The next best things are the supporting performances by the actor playing foppish groom-to-be Edward, the always marvelous Holland Taylor, and the actor playing Taylor's husband. The actor helping to critique Messing's potential outfits in an early scene brings a delightful absurd-yet-winning quality to the proceedings. Okay, that's about it on the positive side.

Dermot Mulroney, whom I adore, is far more believable expressing contempt for Messing than in any scene where he's attempting to be either businesslike or supporting. As others noted, he appears to have no emotional investment in this enterprise other than wrapping it up as quickly as possible. Messing, on the other hand, sincerely tries to carry the film and to create the illusion of chemistry with Mulroney. She is adequate doing so, but is simply not strong enough an actress to pull all of this off without help. Give her an 'E' for effort and a 'C+' for achievement. Given Mulroney's indifference, the one thing that could've helped Messing would have been a brilliantly cavalier Irons-esquire performance from the actor playing her ex-fiancé, Jeffrey. Instead, his performance is weak-kneed, mewling, and feckless.

If I tried to analyze this one any further, I'd obviously be paying more attention than most of the people involved. It's harmless enough to pass time if you have nothing else to do, and less obnoxious (and less creative) than The Wedding Singer, but you're much better off watching 'My Best Friend's Wedding' again.


I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version. James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital and the need for diversity.

The film is shot on hand-held DV which some might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more conventional equipment.

Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' 'The Sorrow and the Pity', both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little disorder - bravo Hubert!

Overall an excellent film with implications that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people, and organise our world.


If you are wondering where many of the conspiracy theories and paranoid ideas about the the UN, Israel, and international affairs come from, look no further.

This isn't a supernatural Hollywood film loosely based on some biblical passage. Instead, this movie was made by a company (Cloud Ten Pictures) with a political and religious agenda. As a movie, the end result at times more looks like clips out of a televangelism program (complete with family prayers and light breaking through church windows while harps are playing).

For mainstream viewers, it may be hard to believe, but many people believe in this stuff literally, as presented in the movie. And that, perhaps, makes the movie important. You probably won't find a more concise exposition of the bizarre views of a significant number of your fellow citizens. So, if you view it, view it as a social/cultural document. If you are at all media savvy, you don't need to be warned about the unsubtle attempts at propaganda and manipulation in the movie.


They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.


I really love this movie!!! I haven't played Final Fantasy VII but i still loved the movie, its really funny and I love the job the voice-over actors have done. The visuals are SO fantastic and all the lines are so well done.

I have to admit i have a pretty good imagination so I was able to fill most of the gaps the movie presented, and I suggest you watch it twice because lots of things 'suddenly' make sense.

Also, (this is pretty funny) you should watch it with the subtitles on because what they say and what the subs say are sometimes completely different. Its really usually pretty funny but sometimes it helps u to understand what they say better.

Watch it!!! love Marnie


I do not write reviews here often but I can not stand by and let other people suffer through this movie without a least trying to warn them. This movie is horrible and it is not because 'I do not know what the director was trying to convey' or 'I am too stupid to understand the plot'; this movie is horrible because of poor direction, screen writing and acting. This is the 'trifecta' of bad move making and the reason the film was direct to video. It tries to be something like 'High Tension', 'Hostel' and 'TCSM' with the lifting of some of those ideas but it just does not work. I did not have high expectations or even medium ones going into the film but was still very disappointed. It had potential to be very good with a nice setting and good idea for a film but it was wasted.


Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards 'eliminating' her. After talking to a 'hitman', the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.


I don't know how I would feel if I lived in USA. I would watch some preview scenes, advertisements, I would know, Sidney Pollack directed it, Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas starring in. I would watch this film as soon as possible without reading any bad review. Would I be disappointment?

I read a lot of review which is said how bad this film was: This is boring, long film without passion emotions and it is not interesting. Harrison is wooden, cold. The sublots should be cut. Too serious, particularly for Harrison Ford. I am interested in the subject, and I like Harrison Ford in the films which are not actions. I like Sidney Pollack and Kristin Scott Thomas too. So reading the reviews on IMDB website then in other sites then in February in the Hungarian movie magazines I was wonder and wonder what the film was. Anyway there are films, directors, stars what/who I want to see despite any reviews.

I can understand people who thinks this film is boring and cold and has got not any passion, but I feel different. It is true I liked Sliding Doors, The Forbidden Woman (this is a French film, I don't know what its title in English, or in French). Basic of these films is development of a love.

I think Random Heart is a nice and interesting film in its own way.

It may be true that the sublots -the congress election and the cop's investigation after a corrupt policeman- are not written well, are not worked out in details but add something to the leading woman and man character.After his wife's death and betrayal emotion, angry of Dutch comes to the surface during his work. He will be suspicious and almost lost his best friend (then the woman too). The film shows two ways to survive the tragedy: our wife/husband's death and cheating. One of them is the woman's: this is tragedy, but the life is continuing. She doesn't want to mourn forever. What she wants to know-what her husband's lover-the cop's wife- thought about her she will not learn never. She is forced to behave in this way. The elections are comes, and anything about his husband may become scandal. She wants her daughter not to be disappointment with her father. The man is a cop.He suffering from the fact he lived in lies. He wants to know -maybe every men would want to know in this situation-when his wife started to cheat him. How long had she got lover?. He needs the woman's help but she doesn't want, but the guy is stubborn and steady/persistent. The woman can't stand him because he always steps into her life and she cannot forget. Their relationship is tense at the beginning then slowly developments a type of silent sympathy which is prefer an alliance against the outside world, the tragedy. (I said it in spite of that they made love in bed) However the cop, can't stop with investigation, can't stop close and can't allow the woman close to him but he starts the 'love', and the woman wants their relationship to continue. But it can't. The woman realizes it. The end is a bit sad, but logic, and nice at the same time.

It was pleasant for me to see again Peter Coyote-I like this man's face- Sidney Pollack. I hardly knew Bonnie Hunt but she was good.

I think Harrison Ford did an okay job. His eardrop is unusual but at the beginning then finally I believed that the woman liked being at his company in spite of his temperament. It was pity he had not got any joke. But Ford has got a good sense of humour. A reviewer noticed (in Hungary): 'Ford is charismatic against his haircut and ear drop and we are waiting for his presence and would like him to smile at us and make an ironic notice. But Dr Jones is not smiling at us'.. But he smiles at the end and it is soooo good. With the rest I agree. I very like him in this role- He is good in acting of this a bit rough, cool but somewhere in his soul smart cop.. The character of Kristin Scott Thomas is a woman who is determined, self confident, but she is closed inside a ivory tower and she keeps aloof from her emotions. But she is a really woman who become indecisive and find support on the cop.The two cool, reserved- people find each other.

Maybe the script is not good. It is full of common, banal sentence, but there are some humorous sentences from the woman and movement particularly from the man. It is a good film but not for everybody, not for the general big audience. I watched the females under 18 and males above 45 liked this film better. About the latter, maybe Sidney Pollack made this film for his age-group which doesn't go to multiplex. Anyway I advice the people who like energetic plots with action scenes, who like only Ford's action films miss this movie.


This film was so bad i had to fast forward most of it to get to the good bits. Hah what good bits? the only bit that was worth it was the ending (those who have seen the film will know what i mean). I expected a lot from this film like a underworld meets dawn of the dead meets Freddy vs. Jason but what i got was this crap. Story was forgettable, the cast was used badly and what was the director thinking when he made this. This could have been a great but i turned out to be the most boring film i have ever watched. OK so what if there was a nice bit of T and A, I was after the gore and i was bitterly disappointed. Don't expect a film thats good but if you want a bad cheesy horror then by all means watch this and see how a horror movie SHOULDN'T BE DONE.


There should be more movies about our Native Americans. I especially think that using actual real Native Americans, would be the the right thing. I know that this Archie Belaney, who was played by Pierce Brosnan he did an excellent job in portraying that character, since he was an Englishman. But my suggestion to Hollywood, is to put more American Indians into the roles, and never use anyone else. The Sioux Nation has been put on the back burner far too long. Their poverty is a disgrace to our country. It is my firm belief that our country should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. We ask Israel to return their lands to the Arabs, but we do not make any effort to do the same, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We must practice what we preach!


For those who loved 'Wayne's World'...'The Blues Brothers'...and hell, even 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' you will find much to like (but probably not love) in 'Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny,' a fictional epic about the formation of the JB (Jack Black)/KG (Kyle Gass) band. Two out-of-work losers with a love for rock n'roll are met with a dilemma when KG's long-supportive mother stops sending him rent checks; JB and KG make tracks for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after a sage music-store clerk (an inspired Ben Stiller) tells them about the titular pick (a funny animated-tapestry sequence gives the backstory). Along the way, our zeroes encounter a snaggle-toothed stranger (a game Tim Robbins), Sasquatch, stoner security guards, sorority chicks, and Satan himself (an ironically-cast Dave Grohl), in a climactic sequence that has to be seen to be believed (and preferably played at high volume). Rarely do I see comedies in the theater, but 'Pick' is an extremely nice change of pace...it may not go up to 11, but it hums a tune both crude and clever for a good 90 minutes. And the songs are inspired low-brow hilarity. Recommended.

6.5 out of 10


Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.

This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.

OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.

3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.


Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it.

Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like collegego figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an 'artist' who is ridiculed for his 'being all different.' Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--Amazingly funny movieeven if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.

--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 binso it's only a little overpriced.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.

--Sounds like they put some effort into the musicbut it doesn't really fit the movieand isn't all that good.

The Bad:

--Terrible, terrible acting.

--Another slasher let-down with sexy womennone of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??

--Ridiculous story.

--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.

--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.

--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at randomyou never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.

The Ugly:

--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of well, all that other crap.

--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the 'Sleepaway Camp' seriesall of which are better than this atrocity.

--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious hereit's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hellbut I've never heard more asinine bantereven in 'Slumber Party Massacre III.' This film makes 'Jason X' look like Shakespeare.

--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.

Memorable Scene:

--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: 'Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh.'

Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funnyso bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10

Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10

Overall: 3/10

Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.

www.ResidentHazard.com


This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.


I love this episode of Columbo. Maybe it's because Ruth Gordon is in it and she is wonderful as successful mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, an American version of Dame Agatha Christie. She is delicious to watch as the perky, lovable author who suffered a terrible loss when her niece died in a drowning accident. She blames her niece's husband, the nephew. She plans to kill him to avenge her death since the police have abandoned her. I would have loved somebody else than Mariette Hartley to play Veronica. I never really like Hartley in anything personally. And of course with Columbo, there are some laughs like when he questions Veronica at a belly-dancing class. Ruth's Abigail is a smart sleuth herself and she matches wits with Columbo always played wonderfully by Peter Falk.


I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.


Man, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.

Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.

-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.

-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.

-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word 'vanished'. Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).

This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.


i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.

I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.

As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO


I am a history teacher and overall I was pleased with the movie. My teen-agers enjoyed it over the holidays. Is it 100% accurate and is it a little sappy in places? Yes..but it took my kids away from the computer and play station to spend four nights watching it all.

The battle scenes were impressive and we met plenty of historical characters throughout. Lloyd Bridges as Jefferson Davis and Hal Holbrook as Abraham Lincoln stand out. We all thought Phillip Casnoff as Bent was evilly and charmingly brilliant. We all thought Charles stole the show from Orry and George.

We will enjoy the movie again!


I have been wanting to see cut since the day i have heard of it, which was sometime last year. Anyway i got to see today, and when the movie started i thought that it started rather week but it got better after 10 mins or so. I thought that the movie was pretty good. but the thing i didn't like was how the killer was created, i was thinking just before i rented that it would probably suck just like Urban legends: final cut, i almost died it. mostly everything in UL final cut needed to be improved. CUT is 100 times better than UL:final cut. The best part of CUT is the killer and the death scenes. The killer kicks MO F***ING ASS.

i give cut a 8 out of 10


'They All Laughed' is one of those little movies I am always recommending to friends seeking something out of the ordinary. It is firmly rooted in the screwball romance traditions of the past, but seems more contemporary. Even the decidedly early 80s atmosphere doesn't date it too much. Bogdanovich wisely keeps the whole enterprise so light on its feet, that reality never brings it crashing down to earth. But, that said, this sort of sweet little movie absolutely relies on the actors to keep it going, and 'TAL' is blessed with a dream cast who understand the requirements of this sort of tale. It is a movie that wouldn't linger so long in the memory if it weren't for the little moments provided by the excellent cast: Colleen Camp's simultaneously shouting orders at John Ritter and her dog; Blaine Novak unleashing all that hair from under his hat; and especially the moment Dorothy Stratten falls for John Ritter and says, 'How...weird.' It's such a piece of fluff one doesn't want to lay too much on it for fear of crushing it, but it is certainly does leave one with a light heart and a smile on one's face.


Ignore everyone else's comments for this movie and watch it on pay cable (like I did) or rent it. You owe it to yourself. This film is what movies are (supposed to be) all about. Hard to categorize (and God knows how this was pitched as a 'high concept'!), but this is one for the angels. Check it out. What have you got to lose?


Starting where the last AVP left off, an Alien 'chestburster' emerges from a dead Predator on a Predator spaceship, and causes the Predator space ship to crash into modern day Gunnison Colorado, where it breeds several more Aliens which start to cause havoc. The Predator race sends down a lone highly experienced and armed Predator to 'clean up the mess'. Our human characters are caught in the middle of the intergalactic battle.

The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. This movie moves along way too fast. The opening credits have only just rolled and already the Predator ship crashes into the Earth after the Alien grows to full hight, a hunter and son character are introduced but before we even get to learn their names they are both killed, then we see the Predator home-world and the lead Predator flies off to fight the Alien infestation, and all this happens within the first five minutes. This unnatural pace does not let up for the entire movie; the National Guard comes into town but within two minutes are all killed without even getting a good look at a single ones face, the manager of a pizza store gets one scene of character development only to be killed off the very next time we see him once again without even learning his name, random hobos, a coffee shop waitress and chef are killed again without learning their names. One moment our main characters are at home, the next running around town, the next in a gun store , the next in an APC, and this random set jumping over and over just doesn't ever let up leaving the audience no time to settle in leaving them grasping for straws.

Another problem is the settings and time frame. The movie is set in modern day Gunnison Colorado. Every other Alien and Predator movie was shot in enthralling settings, such as industrial space ships, guerrilla war zone rainforest's, alien planets, and underground labyrinths. Now comes along AVP-R, set in a small modern day American town, with set 'highlights' including a sporting goods store, parking lots, Pizza Shops, and little girl's bedrooms. I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look as dull, drab and uninteresting as possible?! It's hard to perceive these monsters as frightening creatures when they are standing next to a shelf full of Reeboks, or hiding in the bushes outside little girls bedrooms.

Continuity is a big issue with this film. The Alien series was set in the future, no human had even heard of an Alien before the first film, and the Aliens not only had never been to Earth, but if they ever did reach Earth, humanity would be destroyed. This movie ruins that entire concept by being set in modern day, with Average Joes seeing the Aliens all over the place, and by the end of the movie, humanity is not destroyed, not even suffering what could be considered minor losses. It pisses all over that entire concept of the other movies. Attempts to maintain continuity are made with massive Deus Ex Machina's. The Predator just happens to carry around a bottle of unlimited magic blue liquid that's just to melt away any bodies with just a single drop, the army at the end of the movie just happens to go to overly drastic measures and drop a nuclear warhead that just conveniently erases all evidence of the Aliens existence despite the fact there were many survivors of the incident who are witnesses, and many more bad attempts are made at filling up impossible to cover plot holes.

Also, for a 'Verses' movie, it has unrelenting bias in favor of the Predators. For the majority of the film, a lone Predator manages to kill dozens if not tens of dozens of Aliens, all at mêlée range while barely gaining a single scratch, while the Aliens just get slaughtered left right and center like clay pigeons, merely waiting their turn to be killed by the Predator without putting forth any effort to defend their selves. This movie should not be called 'Alien vs. Predator', as much as it should be 'Predator massacres Aliens'. I mean, how can you have two species battle it out with suspense and tension, when one is portrayed as being vastly superior to the other?

The characters in this film are amongst the biggest flaws. Not only do they pale in comparison to the characters from the previous Alien and Predator movies, but even as a stand alone movie they are bland, dreary, and even at times cringe worthy. The characters in this movie consist of I kid you not, horny couples wanting to get laid, pizza delivery boys, blonde bimbos, high school bullies, children, and a blatant copy and paste job ripping off Ripley and Newt; the worst and most cliché possible ideas for characters. Not only that, but all of the aforementioned characters are acted by teenagers. While the casting of teenagers is an obvious attempt to pull in younger audiences, its only effect is to make the movie look and feel like a typical teenybopper slasher-porn movie, with actors who are too young to have learned how to give a convincing performance, with them mostly having completely blank facial expressions delivering monotone dialog. Not only this, but these characters do some of the most cinematically retarded things ever, such as using Predator guns, commenting the powers out when it has been for hours, following dumb plans to get out of town rather than just walking out of town somewhat quickly, and just so many other idiocies that the movie actually had the audience in my theater sighing out of frustration.

In the end this movie is just a horrible B movie, something deserving of the direct to DVD category. The fact this movie was a theatrical release astonishes me, as every part of the movie just ranks of amateur work.


It has been almost 5 years since the release of this stylish action flick.I have watched this movie almost 10 times and it a great effort by Gautham.From my perspective,I feel this movie is virtually flawless. Surya as ACP Anbuchelvan-no doubt..classy.Jyothika played her role as Maya very well.The character suits her very well.The character that caught movie-goers attention was Pandia.Jeevan played the role of Pandia very well.Brutal and fearsome.Jeevan deservedly received the Best Villain award in the ITFA 2004.The supporting cast of Daniel Balaji,Devadharshini and other performed well.

Racy screenplay,perfectly-timed dialogues and brilliant narration by Gautham.The soundtrack by Harris Jeyaraj are all chart-busters while the BGM suits the movie very well.Cinematography by R.D. Rajasekhar is rich.Peter Hein choreographed the stunts well.Anthony's editing is precise.Above all,Kaakha Kaakha is a perfect cop film filled with right doses of action and romance.

Even some Hollywood film cant compete with Kaakha Kaakha...undoubtedly.


The Evil is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity.


The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!

The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.

MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!

The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).

Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?

While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.

TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day!


This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or 'artistic film-making'... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of 'arthouse' films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be 'very artistic' and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.


Taken the idea out of a true diplomatic incident 'The Wind and the Lion' is a very good adventure film set in the deserts of Africa.

El Raisuli (Sean Connery) head of an Arab tribe kidnaps an American woman(Candice Bergen) and her two children to obtain some concessions for his country out of American president Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith). Out of this simple plot John Milius gets a very complete and enjoyable movie in the genre.

The outdoor dessert locations, an impressive color photography, very well handled action sequences and perfect settings turn the picture in a sort of epic one with an undeniable sense of greatness. The musical score is also remarkable an fits accordingly.

Sean Connery is very good as the Arab leader and proofs he can handle almost any kind of role. So is Candice Bergen as the woman who shows strength under dangerous circumstances but deep inside is scared and has her weaknesses; she gets to admire Connery and even understand his complete different focus on life arising from their also completely different cultures. Brian Keith plays one of his best roles ever as American president Teddy Roosevelt.

Most entertaining and very good cinematographic sample in the genre. Give it chance, you won't regret it.


This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie 'Jaws'. But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.

This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.

The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.

The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.

The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.

A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.

7/10


Having set the sitcom world alight with 'Father Ted' Arthur Matthews and Graham Linehan's next creation was a forgotten gem for the BBC called 'Hippies' Although created by the pair- the six scripts were written by Arthur Matthews alone.

Set in London in 1969- Ray Purbs, a hippy, is the editor of an anarchist magazine. His friends are his flat-mate, the very laid back and cannabis smoking Alex, his 'girlfriend' is feminist Jill and the none too bright Hugo.

Simon Pegg was superb as Ray, but he is superb in everything he is in. This sitcom had a feel of 'Citizen Smith' about it. Ray was very much like Wolfie Smith, trying to beat society, but failing miserably. At last this sitcom is going to be released on DVD in March, I can't wait to buy it. As it was on in 1999 and has yet been repeated on terrestrial television- my memories aren't too good of the sitcom, yet I remember two episodes really clearly, the first being the opener 'Protesting Hippies' which I thought was a great start- where Ray goes on a protest against sandpaper and the other episode was 'Hippy Dippy Hippies' which I think was episode 4, again quite a clear memory about the Police. Sadly, the sitcom got a negative reaction from viewers (I can't think why). The BBC commissioned another series, but Arthur Matthews decided against it because of the negative reaction. Oh well, I can't wait for the DVD.

Best Episode: Hippy Dippy Hippies- Series 1 episode 4.


What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.

But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: 'At least a film with no cars screeching...' If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch 'The Trench'.

I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...


OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5


I just watched Lonesome Dove, Return To Lonesome Dove, Streets Of Laredo and Dead Man's Walk. All excellent. This sorry hunk of junk is cheaply done and poorly acted.

In the previous series, Captain Call and Gus McCrae come off as tough respectable cowboys. Despite the fact that Caption Call is played by a different actor every time each one quickly won me over. In Dead Man's Walk the boys are believable as the younger versions of the experienced Texas rangers. In Comanche Moon they are just a couple of chubby rednecks. I had to stop watching.

I suspect many of the glowing reviews for this show were written by the people who made this stinking pile. It's a sorry end to an otherwise great franchise.


I watched DEATH MACHINES as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. As I work my way through the multiple DVD sets, I am growing to love many of Crown International's movies -- especially, the creepy, erotic, psychological thrillers!

DEATH MACHINES is not one of them.

After seeing movies like MALIBU BEACH, THE CREEPING TERROR and THE PINK ANGELS, it is hard to say that this is the worst film ever made; but, it doesn't have much going for it.

No plot; really no story to speak of.

The acting isn't evident  only the actor responsible for the terribly-played Tony (with the thick, fake Italian accent) made any attempt to 'get into character.'

The score is annoying and pedantic.

The only thing about this movie is why... what compelled the film-makers to make this film?

Did they think the story of: 1) three ninjas, 2) two competing crime bosses, 3) an ancillary bartender / karate school student character; and 4) his pitiful love-interest nurse was so compelling that the world would not be complete without this movie being made?

This is a complete waste of time and money, for you, me, the producers, writers, actors, and the director.


As incredible as it may seem, Gojoe is an anime- and Hong Kong-inspired samurai action flick with a pacifistic message. This ankle of the film is effectively portrayed through the protagonist (a great acting job done by Daisuke Ryu), a killer-turned-to-boddhist-monk Benkei. Benkei has sworn never to kill again, but he still takes up the sword to fight what he thinks is a demon invasion...

Gojoe is a film difficult to rate. It's visual imagery is stunningly crafted and beautiful, but it uses too much trickery (circling camera and high speed drives, expressionistic shots, leeched colors, digital effects etc.), so the end result is somewhat tiring. That said, the beginning and the ending of the film are nevertheless both elegant and powerful. If only the director Sogo Ishii would have been wise enough not to overuse his bag of tricks.

Other problem with Gojoe is the amount of violence. For a film with such an anti-violent message Gojoe wastes way too much energy and screen time to depict the endless battle scenes. Also, the way the violence is shown is always on the edge of being self-indulgent; in fact, a blood shower against the night sky seems to be one of the films signature images. Luckily, Ishii is wise enough to show the ugly, tragic side of violence as well. Still, it seems that Ishii is not sure whether he's making a traditional action film or a deeply moral allegory. The audience can't be sure of this, either, until the very end of the film. The powerful (albeit cynical) ending is what saves Gojoe; it clearly emphasizes that this film is something more than a mere gore-fest.


Just love the interplay between two great characters of stage & screen - Veidt & Barrymore


Could possibly be the worst film ever made. At least plan 9 From Outer Space was funny. I can't believe they talked someone into actually putting up money to make this thing. Complete waste of celluloid. Before I saw this crap I had some respect for Kristophersson. I guess somebody needed a tax write off. Please, in the name of all that which does not suck, stop whoever made this, before they suck again!This movie should be avoided by all people who are not on LSD, or my crazy cousin that insists we're part Native American.If you are in the woods, and an owl starts talking to you, see a psychiatrist. It is not necessary to make a movie about it.


Yes.A real stinker. I saw this movie on the advice of my 'sweet' friends who told me that this is a great 'psychological' movie. This film makes every effort not to be understandable. I was aware that I was in for a stinker after seeing the first 20 minutes.I waited since I expected to see something valuable, and most important of all, I PAID for this film. The wait was unbearable. After seeing the film, I talked with my friends and learned that in the intellectual environments ( They call themselves under this title ) of Turkey this 'movie' had recognised as a masterpiece. Yes, a masterpiece, but in the category of stinkers.I think that a movie must be self-explanatory. This film is just the opposite. Keep away from this thing which calls itself a 'movie'. Burn your money instead of paying for this 'phenomenon'. Rate: 1 out of 10


Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way.

However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.


i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; 'Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language'.

which correctly, IMO, should state ; 'Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language'.

the word 'sexuality' should come after a 'comma', not an 'and' because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like 'vivid' movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.

of course, this is only my opinion.

Joseph


This vicious little film is horrendous. My low rating for it comes for two main reasons. The first is that it is an animal snuff film and I find that whole concept so vile it turns my stomach. Filmed over a hundred years ago, I can only hope that we've evolved into something a little more humane and compassionate. This film is complete and utter exploitation, made to cash in on the sensational aspects of the film and the subject. Historical interest aside, this is something to watch only if one finds themselves in the grip of morbid fascination.

Reason number two? Look at the way that the camera is set up. It is placed in the best possible location to fully capture the full effect: long march forward of the elephant, perfect view of the electrocution platform and a cold and clinically dispassionate viewpoint of the elephant with smoke coming out of it before it finally collapses. Sickening.

Thomas Edison did many great things for civilization and his talents and intelligence aren't in doubt. Nobody is perfect, but when you realize that this film provided A) an opportunity for him to trump early cinematic competitors with a sensationalist film of an elephant being electrocuted and B) he filmed the execution to demonstrate the greater effectiveness of DC as opposed to AC, you can't help but wonder if the scientist in him was a little TOO dispassionate and cold. Any number of Peter Cushing's mad scientists would be proud. The rest of us should be ashamed and revolted.


Boasting some pretty good Rick Baker-esque special effects and Deran Serafian in a small role, this pretty lame Italian movie deserves some recognition. Cerchi gets some credit for still making gore flicks while most of the other Italian directors (Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino, Lamberto Bava, and Enzo G. Castellari) have moved on to lower-key TV movies. As for plankton, it's half Piranha - half The Thing, with people turninging into monsters, raping women, and causing general mayhem. The ultra-grimy, sleazy, and over-sexed feel of the film makes it hard to enjoy. Only available in Italian language work-prints floating around.


This show is without a doubt one of the greatest shows ever to be on television. I mean the acting is great, the suspense, the drama, the comedy, it has everything, and with such a simple story: A plane crashed on an island. The characters are great and Evangeline Lilly is HOT!!!!!! Matthew Fox once again shows us what a great actor he is, Josh Holloway is so great, Jorge Garcia is Hilarious, I could go on and on. Also, the unexpected plot twists, the back stories of the characters, the music that is at the end of every episode. J.J. Abrahms has once again proved what an excellent writer and producer he is. I mean this is better than ALIAS, and I loved ALIAS. Whoever isn't watching this show, should definitely consider getting the DVD's and watching it, because they are missing something great. This show could possibly be the best show in television history!!


So glad I have HBO right now. I didn't plan on watching a movie today, but when I got home and saw that the next movie on HBO was this one I decided (based on the description) to at least give it a shot. I'm so glad I decided to watch this movie! Maybe this movie just caught me at a vulnerable moment (I'm a little stressed out, got a huge test to be studying for), but it definitely gave me quite the perspective on friendship not to mention taught me a valuable lesson on empathy. I'm currently one year away from graduating from pharmacy school and the whole scene involving the doctor and the nurse was definitely a learning point for me!

Anyhow, I just wanted to post up letting the world know this is an amazing movie and not to be missed. There is definitely something for everyone in this movie!


This is not Bela Lagosi's best movie, but it's got a good old style approach for some 40's horror entertainment.

Brides are dropping dead at the altar like flies. I think I'd postpone the wedding until after the fiend is caught, but it's a horror movie, so I guess people ignore the danger for some reason. Anyway, Lagosi is a mad doctor, who needs young female blood to keep his aging, sickly wife healthy and happy. He always eludes the Keystone Cops by hiding the bodies in a hearse (who would think of looking for a corpse in a hearse?), and the brides just keep on getting zapped.

No movie like this would be complete without a Lois Lane type female reporter who wants to catch the criminal on her own. Good at solving crime, bad at keeping her mouth shut at all the wrong times, guess who Lagosi picks for his next intended victim. I love the 'haunted house' bit where Lois Lane gets stranded by a thunderstorm as a guest at Lagosi's sinister mansion. Hidden passageways, a vampire-like wife, an evil dwarf Igor assistant, and so on. Good stuff.

Fairly well done pacing keeps the film moving, and the story resolves itself in a typical but satisfying manner. If you like old horror movies, this one is worth a watch.


This is one of my all-time favorite films, and while it may move too slowly for some, it's well worth seeing. A corporate lawyer (Richard Chamberlain) is dragged into a case involving 'city' Aborigines, and this is no ordinary case. OK, a man has died but it wasn't exactly a normal killing. There has also been a greater than average amount of rain lately, and the atmosphere of most of the film is somewhat claustrophobic & oppressive. The Aborigines are harboring a secret and refuse to spill the beans. This has a lot to do with white men making assumptions about 'City' vs. 'Tribal' Aborigines, and of course no Abo in the big city would practice tribal ways. Uh huh. Chamberlain is having strange dreams and he is somehow the key to what's happening, although no matter how many times I've seen this I can't quite grasp the exact connection. This is a very eerie and creepy film, and is a fine example of Peter Weir's ability to create tension out of nothing. The ending is a little ambiguous but I take it literally, it's the easiest way out and the scariest. 10 out of 10 and highly recommended.


This show is beautifully done. When it first came out I though it nothing more than a light-hearted family comedy with quite a few good one-liners. It seemed to express many families really well too, with different concepts of both parent and child, however, like I said, I never thought any more of it then a good watch on an evening. However, my view was shot out the other window when the tragic death of the fantastically funny John Ritter accrued. The programme stood it's ground and really commended the characters life in a very sensitive way that also touched the hearts of all the admire res of John Ritter, a fantastic actor with the talent to do anything. When the show aired after Ritters passing, I really wanted to just give my dad a hug and let him know how much he meant to me. I thought this shone threw the acting talents of the three children, particularly that of Bridget's character, who was worried of the last words she said to him. It reminded me that no matter what horrible things I say to my dad, I don't mean them and it's very important that he knows this. Great Show


Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.

In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).

Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.

What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.

In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.

All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.

On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.

The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised.


Everything about 'Choose Connor' was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!

Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and 'the system' -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.

I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain.


Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?

It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.

Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.

Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.


These are excerpts from a nine-page 'Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles', written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out):

'...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the 'theme'--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to 'Please Don't Kiss Me' for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as 'Disney'. In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a 'falling down' sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny 'dramatic' sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, 'I want you to kill him.' This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. 'Please Don't Kiss Me' is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to 'Please Don't Kiss Me'...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture.'

All of these edits from Orson were ignored


The cast is admirably chosen and well-balanced. This cinematography is excellent. The music is delightful as all of Burt Bacharach's music is, and is appropriate to the plot line. Making a musical version of Hilton's tale is a welcome change from a plodding re-make. We see seasoned actors who add real depth to the emotional content and significance of each scene. I cannot agree with the critics who overlooked this scintillating gem of a film. It is a treasure of the silver screen! Find it if you can - and let its magic carry you beyond the drudgery of daily worries, inspiring you to find your own 'Lost Horizon'.


First off, consider that this film is nearly fifty years old! Yet, it still stands up as one of the great films of all time. I wonder how many of todays throwaway celluloid productions will still be talked about in 2050?

The story is simple, yet solid enough and the effects are nothing short of phenomenal for the day. I can still recall the first time I watched this, as a kid, when the monster enters the force-field protecting the ship and you got to see its outline for the first (and only) time. Had me shivering in fear, I can tell you. Looks dated today, but still more than effective enough.

The scenes with the tiger show their age now. You can see the outline where the tiger was matted into the shots with Altaira, but they are only just visible.

Likewise, the effect whereby the creature melts its way through the Krell doors are wonderfully done.

It's also amazing to see Leslie Nielsen (better remembered for the Airplane and Naked Gun movies) as a young, but still mature man. He was 30 when this film came out! Nearly 80 now!

All in all a good movie that is sure to continue being a favourite for years to come. Timeless.


To this day, I have never seen Elizabeth Shue in anything else because of the stench of this movie. Poorly acted, poorly plotted and racially Neanderthal, it took place in a Chicago where every black person apparently lived in a blues club. . SPOILER AHEAD. . . . . ..

SPOILER: Her 'blues' solo was even more painful to watch than her clueless acting and the intro into it - 'Nobody leaves without singing the blues' -- was as dumb as a post. The children her character was babysitting were insufferable and well before the movie's end I was wishing for something horrible to happen to all of them.

I have to say though, there is one special thing about this movie; it takes a lot for a movie to offend me but this smoldering piece of tripe did what Chopper, the Phantom Menace and Catwoman could not -- make me sick to my stomach.


Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This 'film' is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.

The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.


As a fan of history, mythology, and fantasy 'Mystic Knights' show pulled me in from the get-go. It has semi-decent scripting, the costumes are fantastic (there are exceptions), it has pretty good acting, and the heroes and villains all play well off each other.

SCRIPTS--Half a script is pretty great, the other half falls flat, but its all mixed together, meaning many episodes turn out so-so. Also, some of the key players are repeatedly being given dead lines (King Conchobar and Angus for instance) they need to be given something... more. I'm not sure what but the writers should be able to come up with something. ACTING--Apart from some over acting by villagers (horrid lines they end up putting too much effort into), casting did extremely well in choosing their leads and so on. Everyone, good and bad, works well together! COSTUMES/WEAPONS--The everyday clothes that everyone wears are spectacular! Mystic Knight armor that falls short are Deirdre's and Garrett's. A chainmail bikini would probably have better protection in her case... and wouldn't look as plastic; his looks like bunch of snap-it-together pieces of brown plastic, when it should look bronze. Ivar's trident looks like it was bought at a discount store and while Garretts weapons look cool, they also look plastic.

Recently 'Mystic Knights' has taken on too many 'Power Rangers' traits, if you watch the show, you'll know what I mean. As the series progresses, though, it should find its niche and perfect its style. Overall, it is a wonderful show that all ages should enjoy (most of my friends and I watch it and we're all 20+). The plot thickens and twists, though it gets a bit juvenile in places, and everything just keeps getting more interesting. It might be of some interest to fans of the movie 'Willow' or the T.V. series 'The Adventures of Sinbad'. A lot of adventure, a dab of mystery, a dash of romance, a sprinkling of forces at nature... Check it out! (My Score: 7/10)


This is a classic British comedy-thriller I had always wanted to check out but no opportunity had arisen for that until now. It's based on a popular stage play which had already been filmed a number of times previously (most notably in 1931 by the same director but, unfortunately, this version seems not to have survived in its entirety!); for the remake under review, the plot has been updated to the then-current wartime situation.

Anyway, I was mainly familiar with early British comedians through the films of Will Hay: given that this one features a similar plot of legendary hauntings, smuggling and enemy agents, it's very much in that vein (it was actually scripted by Hay's regular writing team of Marriott Edgar, Val Guest and J.O.C. Orton); the stranded travelers element, then, was an equally tried-and-true formula. The star this time around is Arthur Askey (abetted by Richard Murdoch) - none of whose films I had watched before - who is as unlikely a hero as Hay himself and whose personality proves to be just as potentially irritating...but one soon warms up to him, and Askey certainly comes up with a number of witty lines and amusing bits of business throughout to justify the fact that the lead character of the play (and the 1931 film version) was split into two here, with Murdoch acting as the star's straight partner.

The remote single setting (the events of the film largely take place during one stormy night) provides for some wonderful atmosphere; the last half-hour - with the sudden appearance of a mysterious couple (Raymond Huntley and Linden Travers) and eventually the arrival of the titular vehicle itself - is especially gripping and well handled. Also worth mentioning from the remaining cast list is Kathleen Harrison as the stereotypical frightened spinster, with a parrot as her constant companion and who is driven by all the excitement to take her very first drink.


This movie was horrendous it was sorta like accidentally watching a gay porn waiting for the girls but they just don't come....I waited for almost 2 hours for the damn scarecrows....they just don't come...instead it's just some dumb ass wandering through a dead cornfield with a camera it's a mix of Blaire witch and some bad episode of the twilight zone. And the best part is that as of October 23 2005 they started filming a sequel please don't be fooled by the box even though it looks exactly the same as the first dark harvest it's not lions gate bought the rights to the Maize:the movie and had the brilliant idea to release it as the sequel to the original dark harvest;which i thought was funny........the only thing they had in common was they were both shot in a cornfield....This Movie WILLLLLL not scare the crop out of you like the first one so just stay away!!!!!


Okay, 'enjoy' is a pretty relative term, but flexibility is in order when you're dealing with a filmmaker of James Glickenhaus' calibre.

McBain is truly one of the most ridiculous, over the top action films I've ever seen, without the nasty edge of The Exterminator. Other reviews have commented on a suspension of disbelief regarding the film's heroic middle aged commandos, but how about making a film in the Philippines that is set in Colombia? All the extras are Filipino. In fact the only character who looks remotely Hispanic is good ol' Victor Argo as the much reviled 'El Presidente'! Oh yes, we also have Maria Conchita Alonso overemoting like crazy as a rebel leader. There are tons of explosions and bodies flying everywhere in this amusing paean to the glories of American imperialism.


This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.


I attended the premier last night. The movie started out with a bang (perhaps due to pre-premier excitement). The audience laughed for about 15 minutes, then most of us spent the rest of the time fighting off sleep. This movie can not be compared to _Spinal Tap_ or any of Guest's work, unless you want to say _Sons of Provo_ is a wanna-be gone awfully wrong. It just fell flat, it died, it was painful. The story went nowhere, the jokes were bland, even if you were a Mormon and could get all of the inside jokes, it felt like a waste of time. There were two redeeming qualities: Kirby's acting was spot on! And the songs were very clever (for an LDS audience only). So, my recommendations... Avoid the movie. And if you are Mormon, buy the music CD.