When this movie was made in 1980, I was a teenager in the football stands playing as part of the audience. This was done at Mooseheart, Illinois. The big letters spelling out 'MOOSEHEART' at the top of the stands were covered up with a banner in the movie. The director would tell us to cheer loudly at certain points, as if a touchdown was being made. St. Charles juvenile correction center is a real place less than 30 miles from Mooseheart, although I think it may have closed down recently. During one scene, they show a black woman and a white man in the audience watching the game. Right below them, you can see my sister Noel's head (she was 11 at the time). In the VHS version, I can only see the top of her head, but when I saw it on TV in 1981 I could see her whole head and my sister Jacqui as well.

I thought the movie itself was OK for a made for TV movie. Since there's already a description of the movie here, I need not repeat it. It's worth seeing at least once.


Maslin Beach is a real nudist/naturist beach south of Adelaide, on the Fleurieu Peninsula, in South Australia. It is also the name of an Australian film that used the beach as a location.

Maslin Beach is labelled a romantic comedy. This could be slightly misleading, as it is not a 'hilarious' film, nor is it really romantic in the traditional sense, but it does have light-hearted moments. Much as life itself, there are also moments of sadness too. It is also entirely shot at the nudist beach mentioned above, and nudity runs throughout the length of film. The viewer quickly learns to accept this as normal, and concentrate on the plot, not the copious amount of flesh.

Simon and Marcie (Michael Allen and Eliza Lovell) arrive by car at a beach-side car park. They take their belongings to the beach, and while they are walking, a voice-over from Simon talks about his confusion about what real love is. The rest of the film is an exploration of this, framed by one complete day at the beach. The basic story is of what happens to Simon's love life, but there are also many other characters highlighted in several separate vignettes.

When they arrive at the beach, both Simon and Marcie appear bored with each other. Marcie sees them as a 'Romeo and Juliet' romantic couple. Simon is just bored with it all. Next, we are introduced to Gail (Bonnie-Jaye Lawrence), Paula (Zara Collins) and Jenny (Jennifer Ross). They are walking down the beach together discussing Gail's chances of finding the 'perfect' man, aided by the 'powers' of a necklace that brought good luck to her Grandmother. However, there are many more interesting people on the beach, not all of them 'attractive' and young (part of the realism of this film).

To service the beach's patrons there is a flatulent, short-sighted ice-cream salesperson with a van. This is Ben (Gary Waddell), who is a friend of Simon, and is also his unofficial counsellor. I would think that this character is the main comic element. It is hard to say though, as there is nothing about Ben that would make you laugh aloud, unless you were intoxicated, male and very young! Maslin Beach does have a major redeeming feature though, and that is that it does not dwell too long on any one subject. As the quality of acting is variable, the script is suspect and everything about Maslin Beach is cheap, the lack of continuity is a positive boon. In fact, there is something about this film (not the nudity) that I find appealing. It is hard to define what it is, but it could be something to do with its bluntness, and downright 'Aussie' attitude to carnal matters.

The camera work in Maslin Beach deserves a mention. Sometimes it is very good, with some stunning static shots and 'pans' of the beach, cliffs and a sunset. As nudity is a major factor in this film, framing is an important aspect of the camera work. There is no sense of gratuity in the framing, meaning that the framing is done so that the camera does not dwell on 'private' body parts. This helps to ease any sense of viewer discomfort from being within the subject's 'personal space', and makes the film more tasteful. Not an easy task, given the location for filming.

Maslin Beach is neither a 'skin flick' for post-pubescent, testosterone charged males, nor a 'Mills and Boon' romance for under-appreciated women. Maslin Beach does not seem to fit anywhere in genre. The actors are not 'attractive' in the Baywatch sense, and are just 'normal' people that you would see on the beach anywhere. It does not have a message to put across and it would not even act as a tourism advertisement, other than perhaps to Naturists. Apart from the Australian accent, the filming could have been in any sunny country. What makes this film distinctly Australian is the fact that it is pointless (cinema verite?), and only Australian Cinema, and other medium sized National Cinemas, could consider such a rash option. At the same time, these medium sized cinemas have room for experimentation in the quest for identity, and a 'flop' is not going to damage their reputation too much. It is always possible, given that Maslin Beach is now a collector's item, that the film might become internationally popular, but it is very unlikely.

During this critique, I have been sounding highly negative, at times, about Maslin Beach. This is not the real position, as I found the film very easy to watch. I enjoyed it as a reflection of near reality and real people (and problems). The problems confronted in the film are those of the everyday, and a little low on spectacle. This does it no harm in my view, and I wish that more films dealt with the everyday like this. There is a connection here with the cinemas of Europe, and with French film in particular. They rarely deal with major disasters or catastrophes, but with the everyday. Hollywood is in direct opposition to this, and rides the crest of the hyper-real action/drama/angst wave. The pace too, is much faster in Hollywood, but it is not reality. Maslin Beach is not exactly 'Jacques Tati' either, but it is on the right track, even if it does ignore issues of multi culturalism, equality, gender orientation and so on, that are of such importance in current cinema. I am sure that you will either love or hate this film, with little room for a middle ground.


What can I say about the series dubbed the NEW OUTER LIMITS...Hmm.... Only that this was one of the best TV series ever assembled!! You have actors of all ages, The actors that are somewhat known and that time forgot. Everyone playing their part to exact perfection! These shows always have some type of moral story to them which most of the time (if not all the time) is very true! You can feel that the man whose voice is dubbed over the credits and in the beginning and ending believes what he is saying wholeheartedly! Not only do these shows have great story lines, they also throw you into them, get your mind racing, and your blood pumping. The original outer limits was a black and white in the 60's right, These shows made a triumphant comeback the likes of which I have never seen! The new twilight zone with Forest Whitaker was fun to watch, but the New OUTER LIMITS is where it's at! If you have not seen: I implore you to please check these episodes out, and you will see exactly what I mean! LONG LIVE THE NEW OUTER LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!


'Soapdish' is one of the best, yet least well remembered comedies of the 1990's. The film revolves around the various off-camera drama's that occur behind the scenes of a cheaply produced Daytime Soap Opera. The first of the film's various impressive strengths is it's fantastic A-List cast. 'Soapdish' features some of the greatest actors and actresses of it's era.

The film is superbly led by Sally Field, as the neurotic ageing actress Celeste Talbert (She famously throws a tantrum when put in a costume that makes her look like 'Gloria F*CKING Swanson!'). Her supporting cast reads like a who's-who of 90's Movie Greats! Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr, Teri Hatcher, Kevin Kline and Kathy Najimy all elevate the film greatly. Goldberg is predictably excellent, whilst Downey Jr.'s and Hatcher's performances hint at the comedic excellence they would later achieve.

In terms of writing, the film is outstanding. There is a really modern edge to the script, which strays into the wonderfully bizarre on several occasions. There also several visual gags that are quite ahead of their time. In some ways, the film is reminiscent of Mel Brooks at his best and frequently reminded this reviewer of 'High Anxiety' (1977). Much of the film's humour hinges on it's often scathing, but pretty accurate, representations of daytime television and of neurotic and pretentious actors. For example, The extras casting session featuring the exploitative executive played by Carrie Fisher, is both hilarious and honest.

'Soapdish' is, for my money, one of the very best comedies Hollywood produced during the 1990's. It's excellent script and A-Class cast make it a must-see. It's hard not to love this film after it's kept you laughing for 90 minutes.


A film by Almodovar- sends a tingle down my spine every time. The capitalized print which opens the Spanish auteur's latest feature instantly induces memories of salacious nuns, gentle necrophiliacs, wisecracking transsexualsand I haven't even got as far as the infant-terrible's critically reviled early work. And after a beautiful opening montage, with the camera roving across a wind-swept graveyard animated by a hoard of widows feverishly scrubbing tombstones, I thought Pedro had me again under his wicked spell.

Yet once my nostalgia had subsided, there was very little to fill its place. For a director who revels in bringing humanity to assassins and rapists, he does a very poor job at finding any emotional depth or endearing quality in his women. Penelope Cruz is Raimunda, a headstrong housewife whose life is complicated by her daughter's accidental killing of her abusive husband. Thankfully she lives in Almodovar's Spain where your friends will quite happily help to dispose of a corpse for the offer of a round of cocktails. Add to the melting-pot the ghost of Raimunda's mother and a host of other eccentrically warm-hearted matriarchs. 'Volver' means literally to return, and Pedro does appear to be recycling old material. The sub-plot of incest feels as though it were tacked-on as the obligatory 'taboo'. Instead of commenting on or subverting the issue, as with his treatment of paedophilia in Bad Education, it feels forced and unconvincing amid the film's chick-flick sentimentality. I suggest Almodovar call his next film Salir (to move on).


Hotel Du Nord is a gripping drama of guilt in which Marcel Carne portrayed an entertaining tale of ill-fated love which also functions as a revolt against the cruel world.The film is based entirely on a pair of hapless lovers.Pierre and Renee were mistaken when they believed that suicide would put an end to their misery.Hotel Du Nord has its own inimitable charm as its inhabitants have become an essential part of the establishment.There is an element of togetherness as everyone flocks to Hotel Du Nord to eat,chat etc.Marcel Carne has remained true to the spirit of the films produced in 30s and 40s as Hotel Du Nord has a certain kind of nostalgic feel.Carne,while recreating the life of Parisian roads was able to create a sort of nostalgia for black and white giving a unique genre of poetic realism to his oeuvre.Hotel Du Nord can be termed as a quintessence of cinematographic populism.The 14th July ball scene on the banks of Saint Martin canal remains a magnificent sequence.The film's immense popularity can be judged from the fact that Hotel Du Nord has been declared as a national monument.


This movie is one exception of the rule that a sequel is worser than the original. Its comedy at its best. This movie is a fast action slapstick comedy where something seems to happened every second. At more than one occasion the entire audience laughed loudly at a joke.

Its a big advantage to have seen the first movie but its not a requirement.

Göta kanal 2 also have the advantage of being a parody on the latest decades reality production TV series such as survivor (expediton: Robinson in Swedish) This is a Swedish movie for the Swedish audience. Thus don't see it if you aren't familiar with Sweden and its language. Otherwise: Have fun! Johan


Aimless teens on summer break in a small Ohio town can't find any meaningful ways to fill their time. Some consider driving to Chicago; others are content to drink and bully their peers. In a random act of alcohol-fueled arrogance, the bullies rough up a homeless man and steal a strange book. The handwritten text turns out to contain archaic spells designed to summon demonic forces. A night or two later, one of them reads an incantation and is quickly possessed. He turns into a vicious killer and begins to quietly prey on his former peers.

'Demon Summer' is an amateur production with a microscopic budget. The production values are low, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not be ambitious. Little in the way of special props or shooting locations were needed. The acting is especially weak and there is virtually nothing original in the screenplay. On the positive side, the special makeup effects are surprisingly good by low budget film standards. Despite this, the gore is minimal. Makeup effects aside, there is little going for this film, even for die-hard gore-hounds. Not recommended.


Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: 'Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages' (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).

And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This 'movie' almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.

Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: 'When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that.' Huh?

About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.

Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads 'Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl'. Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: 'airplanes, why it's against the creator's will', in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.

Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.

This film is so bad it makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like 'Citizen Kane', by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's 'Glen Or Glenda'. But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.


If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.

Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the 'ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!' hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.

Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.


This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the 'scientists' and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.

I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: 'A Brief History of Nearly Everything.' There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.


Dark and bleak sets, thrilling music that cuts through your spin like aknife (or razor) a perfect cast lead by Broadway greats Hearn and Lansbury. This is exciting theatre flawlessly transferred to the small screen. Sondheim is the most talented songwriter of our age and Todd is his Masterpiece, from the Brechtian opening ballad to the darkly humorous Act I finale- 'A Little Priest' where Lovett and Todd fantasize about the victims that will wind up in their meat pies , this play never ceases to thrill,excite and satisfy. Betsy Joslyn also excels as Johanna, even she, as the plays ingenue seems slightly mad.Edmund Lyndeck turns in a bravado performance as the corrupt Judge who lusts after Joslyn and is the subject of Todd's vendetta. Lansbury and Hearn command the show as only two great actor/stars can do. Other musical highlights include Todd's 'johanna' Lovett's 'worst pies in London' and the Act II opening 'GOD THATS GOOD', And that is a title to describe this production !


I liked this movie for the most part, but have to say had there been anyone else besides Bill Murray in the lead role it would not have been as good. He brings an energy to the role that steps this film up a notch than it would have been otherwise. I mainly enjoyed the pranks pulled on the one counselor and there are other humorous things in this movie too such as the hot dog eating contest. This movie would also set the stage for summer camp movies with the competition at the end. Nearly every camp movie has either this or the unruly or troubled kids plot, or a combination of both. This series also would take a rather strange shift in tone as this one and two are both family friendly movies while part three and four are more adult oriented, more like the old teen sex comedies of the time. It kind of did the opposite of the Police Academy movies that went from R to PG-13 to PG movies. This series goes from the opposite to R. Still this first one and only good one is worth some chuckles largely due to Bill Murray.


This show is terrible. I cannot get over the complete waste of great talent this show contains. This is not entertaining improvisational acting, it's just a cheap attempt to throw someone famous comedic actors onto a stage and have them perform a poorly improved scene. I have actually done improv work as an actor, and this show is not improv.

What the audience is actually laughing at (if they're actually laughing at this show at all, it looks quite fake) is the embarrassment of the guest star being lost like a deer in headlights. The dumb, completely unrelated things they come up with are what people laugh at. And if it's not part of the scene, the actors will tell them that it's wrong! I find this show is disgrace to the art, and makes me cry for shows like Whose Line is it Anyway, which had great talent, great improv games, and on top of everything else, didn't make me want to change the channel.


Ruggero Deodato is often credited for inventing the cannibal subgenre with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST in 1975. But director Umberto Lenzi, usually acknowledged as a Deodato rip-off, directed THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER 3 years earlier in 1972. Is it a worthy start for the genre? Well....not really.....

A photographer accidentally kills a man in self-defense and while retreating into the jungles of an Asian country, is captured by a native tribe who hold him captive, force him into slave labor, and eventually accept him when he marries the chief's daughter. Throughout the whole film, I never felt this was a horror film. It was more reminiscent of a drama, like A MAN CALLED HORSE, which I liked better. Ivan Rassimov is pretty good as the photographer, but it is Me Me Lai as the chief's daughter who is memorable and great. I have always been a Me Me Lai fan ever since her breathtaking performance in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and she is never given credit for her acting chops because she hardly speaks in her films. She is still very talented and charming. Lots of real animal mutilation is the one thing about DEEP RIVER that could make it a horror film, but even that doesn't execute well.

THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER is good to see for those who want to see what started the cannibal subgenre, but as an entry in the genre, is easily eclipsed by Deodato's entries and even Lenzi's own later entries. Recommended only for completists and Me Me Lai fans.


I saw the preview in Femalien and thought it could be a cool film. Turns out, it is an awful garbage. There isn't much nudity in the film, not to mention not having much sex either. There were just some dumb and corny dialogues along with some noninteresting dancing you usually expect to see during audition. In our case, you may even see it in the actual films. Conclusion: I ain't got none for it. Just leave it alone.


The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.

There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!

A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing!


I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. 'You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded,' he said with a smug smile, 'but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon.' The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.

There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.

The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.

About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.

I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.

I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting.


i really wanted this to be good as i am from Liverpool where it is set but it truly awful. the acting from everyone involved is cringeworthy the script is terrible absolutly terrible. terrible


Im a die hard Dads Army fan and nothing will ever change that. I got all the tapes, DVD's and audiobooks and every time i watch/listen to them its brand new.

The film. The film is a re run of certain episodes, Man and the hour, Enemy within the gates, Battle School and numerous others with a different edge. Introduction of a new General instead of Captain Square was a brilliant move - especially when he wouldn't cash the cheque (something that is rarely done now).

It follows through the early years of getting equipment and uniforms, starting up and training. All in all, its a great film for a boring Sunday afternoon.

Two draw backs. One is the Germans bogus dodgy accents (come one, Germans cant pronounced the letter 'W' like us) and Two The casting of Liz Frazer instead of the familiar Janet Davis. I like Liz in other films like the carry ons but she doesn't carry it correctly in this and Janet Davis would have been the better choice.


'Tourist Trap' is a bizarre, great horror film from the '70s. The film is about a group of young adults, Becky, Jerry, and Molly, who are traveling in a jeep through a desert area. Their two other friends, Eileen and her boyfriend Woody, are in a separate car. When a wheel goes flat, Woody takes it to a nearby gas station - and meets a grisly fate to some bizarre telekinetic mayhem and some creepy mannequins. The friends get tired of waiting for Woody and go to a local 'tourist trap' mannequin/wax museum. In front of the entrance, the car randomly breaks down, and the girls find an oasis area to go swimming in, where they are approached by Mr. Slausen, who runs the roadside attraction that is now closed down. He takes them up to the old western wax museum, and the girls stay behind while he and Jerry go to fix their car. Eileen, the curious of the two, wanders to an old house nearby, where she also falls to the hands of a mysterious masked killer and a bunch of life like mannequins. After awaiting for Eileen, Becky and Molly go to look for her. That's when the real horror begins, and the telekinetic (can move objects with his mind) masked brother of Mr. Slausen begins to kill off the teens one by one, while controlling his large amount of human-turned mannequins.

Sound similar to the 2005 'House of Wax' remake? Well, it is. I'd heard of this movie but never seen it when I saw 'House of Wax', but now I can see the striking similarities the two movie share - 'Tourist Trap' was obviously a big contributor to the 'House of Wax' remake. The mannequins in this movie are scary to begin with, some with moving eyeballs, some with no eyes at all, and some with dropping mouths that sing too. The singing was extremely creepy if you ask me, and the mannequins were eerily designed. Mannequins are creepy to begin with, they're so lifelike yet they really aren't. The movie tightly blends elements from 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' (the masks the killer uses are similar to those of Leatherface), with a little bit of the original 'House of Wax', and the telekinetic powers that are displayed in 'Carrie'. The result is quite satisfying. The telekinesis was a nice touch to the movie, it made the killer all the more menacing and inescapable. The masks were terrifying, and the plastering scene was really disturbing.

The score for the film was really well done, if not a little overused during some scenes. The acting may not be particularly on key, but it really wasn't that bad. Chuck Connors was really good as the shadowy Mr. Slauston, giving the character a shady but friendly feel. A young Tanya Roberts is also in the film, she's most known for her role on 'Charlie's Angels' and more recently the sitcom 'That '70s Show', playing Donna's mother. Robert A. Burns serves as the art director, he did a phenomenal job on the original 'Texas Chainsaw' and does a good job here as well, creating a cluttered, musty atmosphere to both the rundown museum and the old house filled with mannequins. I found it a little odd that the original rating for the film was PG, it seems a little too scary to have such a tame rating, but the film really isn't too violent.

Overall, 'Tourist Trap' is an eerily unique, fast paced, extremely under-appreciated horror classic. Full Moon gave it a decent 20th anniversary DVD release, the commentary was interesting and the picture was clear and crisp for the most part, better than the video versions. If you enjoy older '70s slasher-horror films, 'Tourist Trap' is an underrated retro gem. 8/10.


Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.

Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!

I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.


I have an awful pan-and-scan videotape of 'Boom!', and I want to see it in all its widescreen glory. So I voted '1' and hope you will too. Together, we can pull this movie down into the pits of cinematic dross, and hope that someone will see an opportunity for BIG MONEY in releasing 'Boom!' in its Director's Cut Extended Version. The movie is one of my howling favoritesyou just look at the people involved, the director, the actors, the cameraman, and you say to yourself, 'Yep, I guess you can fool some of the people for a lot of time.' Producers considering the DVD release of 'Boom!' should note that, everywhere it's been shown, there have been sellout crowds in the theaters. But it hasn't been up to Frostbite Falls yet.


I started watching this because I was looking for a nice 'background' comedy for my Sunday morning. Then I noticed that this was going to be a road-movie and I decided to actually watch this.

First 15 minutes were awful, but I wanted to give this a chance, because I never judge a movie without watching it throughly. Then things started to get little better. This seemed like a nice road-movie about friendship.. But then the movie started to get horrible predictable cliché-twists and when the movie was over it left you feeling like you had wasted your time. Did this have anything to say? Why did they even make a movie like this? And I wasn't expecting a modern Citizen Kane, but still, I have several ideas how this movie could have been improved.

So take my piece of advice; leave this alone and go watch a real road-movie. There are many of those. I won't make the directors of those movies seem bad by putting their names on this review.

1/10


When people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying 'Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!' I've never been so mad at a movie, not even 'Nutty Professor II: The Klumps' or 'Flash Gordon'. You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying 'oh, but its too look like a comic book', well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God.


'Atlantis: The Lost Empire' was everything the previews indicated it would be. It is not often you find that. Most of the time, the previews show only the best parts and then the rest of the movie is terrible. Not so with this one. I was pleased with the original plot, even though the sub-plots were not. The animation was not break through like 'Shrek' but it was good, none the less. The plot and the story line were well presented and there were only a few slow spots in them. This keeps you interested. I found myself enjoying this one. 'Atlantis' gets and keeps your attention. You also have to think a little bit, but not too much. Once you think about it a little, you can figure out what needs to happen but you really don't know for sure how it is going to happen.

The casting was also good. Michael J. Fox, as Milo was an excellent choice. His personality fits nicely. The gruff natured Commander Rourke was also well chosen with James Garner. His character reminded me of his performance in 'Maverick' which I also liked. I really liked the casting of Claudia Christian as Helga Sinclair. Her ability to play a no nonsense personality makes the film more interesting. It's just too bad she is a villain.

Over all, definitely worth you while (8 out of 10).


I was fooled to rent this movie by its impressive cover. Alas. It is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Judging by the acting of the film characters, it's more a comedy than a horror film. No surprise why no one else has written comments on the imdb. Avoid it.


IN & OUT, in my opinion, is a very hilarious movie. I thought that Cameron (Matt Dillon) was wrong to say that Howard (Kevin Kline) was gay. The part I liked most was Howard's bachelor party. This was because they were cracking jokes about a lot of things, including Barbra Streisand films. I also thought that Emily (Joan Cusack) looked very beautiful in her wedding dress and that Howard looked good in his tuxedo. My favorite quote of IN & OUT is, 'Is everybody gay? Is this 'THE TWILIGHT ZONE'?' That was absolutely hilarious! The one character I couldn't stand was Sonya (Shalom Harlow). This was because she was VERY conceited and snobby. In conclusion, I recommend this movie to all you Kevin Kline fans who have not seen it. Be prepared to laugh HARD and have a good time when you see it.


If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy


I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment


I am deeply disturbed by some posts I am reading on the message boards for this movie, people saying it is actually a good movie! Just because this movie is Uwe Boll's best to date does not make it a good movie at all, no way in hell! Far Cry is a clichéd mess full of bad acting, poor direction, and an uninspired story with a shoddy script. This is Boll's first pure action movie, and news flash people, action movies aren't too hard to make because for a basic action flick all you need is explosions and gun battles scattered around a flimsy plot, and hey, Mr. Boll succeeds in doing that. House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all horror games adapted into movies by Boll are far worse than this (they have no redeeming qualities). Far Cry boasts two things which make it his best yet: two good leads and a couple of well-done action sequences. Til Schweiger is quite good as Jack Carver, and Emmanuelle Vaugier is a strong female lead. The usually great Udo Kier is passable as the clichéd villain and the supporting cast are pretty damn bad. Towards the end of the film there is a surprisingly tense chase sequence which came as a shock considering Boll was behind the camera.

Unfortunately the rest of the movie has an incredibly cheap feel to it, with bad CGI, lame one-liners and clichés around every corner. Oh, and the worst lead up to a sex scene I think I have ever scene. Not only have the two only known each other for six hours, but all it takes is for him to say he kept warm while in the army by spooning his fellow soldiers. He already got her to take his clothes off by merely telling her to. Then he took his off and climbed into bed because he was afraid of hypothermia.

Anyway, to summarise, this is a bad movie. It is mindless action movie that can kill 80 minutes if you are totally bored. One could probably do worse than popping this in and watching it, but I'd personally say watch a classic action film like Die Hard or Predator and stay away from this derivative mess.

1½/5


I saw this the week it opened four years ago and I really did not know what to expect being unfamiliar with Sorrentino's work at the time. He has created a very intriguing and ultimately moving account of an odd character, one for whom the phrase 'life is for living' no longer applies. It outwitted me at every turn and I was constantly surprised by the story. I enjoyed the pacing very much and the way I was gradually given the pieces to work out what was happening. Tony Servillo is superb, as is Magnani. It opens with a brilliantly stylish wide shot and concludes with a very moving image that takes the movie into sublime territory. I thought long afterwards about the main character and the position he was in and his final fate and I didn't shake it for weeks. I recently bought the film and that final scene where he thinks about his friend gets me every time. I still have yet to talk to anyone who has seen this. It's a shame that it did not reach a wider audience as if this is the direction of Italian cinema it can only be a good thing.


I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named 'Once Upon a Crime...'. Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.

I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a 'great' comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.

The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.

Kind of a mix between 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World' and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected.


This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid. It had it all--music, stories, a talking squirrel, and chuckling daisies. I wanted to be one of those hippie chicks singing and swinging on a swing. I'm 35 and I grew up in South Jersey, but we got three New York channels with our cable hook-up, and I think it was on Channel 11. They just don't make shows like this anymore (I know that makes me sound really old), and it blows my mind that I grew up with only 9 channels on our TV, but I could always find something cool to watch. I've only talked to one other person who actually heard of and watched this show. She's three years younger than me, and she grew up in North Jersey. I would love to see this series on DVD, so I could show it to my 5 year old daughter, and she could see what silly (but great) stuff her mom used to watch! I just found a VHS tape of a few episodes, and a music CD from the show on ebay, and I bought them right up, even though they were a little pricey. I can't wait to get them to re-live the great memories!


this is best comedy i ever seen! but not all can understand this you must be from Georgia to understand this amazing movie! :) overall one of best film i ever seen......... Vachtangi(Benjamin) and all supporting actors playing very very good but acting of Kote Daoshvili (Father Germogel) is for my opinion best acting in supporting role in history of films :)) in this movie playing many georgian stars like ipolite xvichia,sergo Zakariadze,sofiko chiaureli,verikoan djafaridze,Sesilia Takaishvili,Dodo Abashidze.... they all are Stars in Georgian cinematography :) plus in this movie is playing great Russian star Evgeni Leonov and of course Director of the film Georgy Danelia is one of the best...... i recommending this movie for everyone but remember you must know good Russian language to watch this movie


John Leguizamo must have been insane if he thinks this was a funny movie. I laughed more times watching Remains of the Day. Pathetic plot, unbearable acting. Horrible music -- Michael Sambello IS a 'Maniac.'


I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(


What was Steven Seagal thinking? I mean firstly I love Seagal. I love all his movies up to the mid 2000s. His early stuff is some of the best in the genre. This however does not live up to its excellent name. Attack Force (with protagonist Marshall Lawson {Seagal}) would be expected to be a mindless action movie with Seagal in typical one-liner ass kicking form. However, what we get is a crime mystery, bordering on a political thriller with little or no action. Seagal is always in shadows because of his weight. I could not follow this story. There's people who mutate to superhumans when they take a drug. What happened in this movie. The dubbing of Seagal is a disgrace, a shambles and a shame. Why dub the man? The story is terrible. This got a 2/10 from me because of the scene where Seagal asks for backup despite having an army with him, and an hilarious fight scene where seagal swings his hands like a girl facing the camera! 'Revenge is a two way street' seagal says in this movie...well forget revenge Steven, you need redemption!


Greetings, Moviegoers! As I watch Octopus II, I contemplate the inherent lameness of the Octopus/Croc/Dino Horror Genre. Many moviegoers may blame the poor acting, nonsensical screenplay, or poorly constructed plot as the reasons that cause the OCD movie to flounder. These reasons may indeed be floundering factors, but it is the inherent difficulty of filming an OCD movie that is at the heart of the lameness.

You see, the technology does not yet exist to make a realistic, life-size OCD and the CGI technology currently used by studios lacks the ability to blend in smoothly with real world environments and characters. Even with clever cinematography, you can only film the semi-dark depths of the sea/semi-dark forest/semi-dark cave/semi-dark corridor so many times before the Sci-Fi aficionado becomes bored with the genre entirely (the OCD sub-genre, that is).

What can be done, you ask? I wouldn't suggest that the genre surrender to cheesiness, but another avenue needs to be explored. We can't really go back to the days of the 'Fade-to-Black' cue that someone has been killed. Or can we? If we can't reach the goal of realism, we have to compensate in other ways, such as plot twists, innuendo, and photo-ingenuity.

It will be through ingenious and alternate methods that the disease of lameness, so common to the OCD sub-genre, will be cured.


Eric Idle, Robbie Coltraine, Janet Suzman - it should have been almost impossible to go wrong. Of course it has some funny moments - the scene in the showers when Robbie Coltraine echoes Lon Chaney Jr's ghastly werewolf line 'I can't help myself' is hilarious. But ultimately the plot, script and direction are flat as a pancake and as tired as a 90 year old nun after 180 'Hail Mary's. When I was a child, Carry On films filled this niche slightly better, which is a really sad indictment of a film with such a promising cast.


From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in 'Manchurian Candidate.' A disappointment on all counts.


Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.

Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever 'social ill' Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling 'Iowa' 'important.' But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.

The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, 'What happened?' It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work.

Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.

This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of 'American Idol,' perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film.

What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.


This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.

The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.

I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.

Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.

I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.

it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Avengers held this dubious honor but no longer. The acting in 'Jill the Ripper' is terrible and was only eclipsed by the plot. This movie is as intellectually stimulating as the Telletubbes. It doesn't know whether it wants to be an S&M flick or a really bad thriller. Only watch under extreme intoxication or if you're bed ridden and need a leather clad distraction. This script should be reworked into a porn, it wouldn't take very much effort and would have a longer shelf life. A porn, even a bad porn, wouldn't do the damage to Dolf Lundgren's career the way that this movie has.


These reviews that claim this movie is so bad its good are going way overboard with that one. This movie does not have the guilty pleasure badness that Leonard Part 6, Battlefield Earth and Gigli had. Those movies were entertaining in their awfulness but this pile of dinosaur dung is so bad its painful. I haven't been in this much pain watching a bad movie since I watched Baby Geniuses and Superbabies. Before I start the review let me tell you the story. Theodore Rex is a $35 million dollar bust The New Line Cinema refused to put in theaters. They cut the losses sending it straight to video making it the most expensive straight-to-video movie in decades. Whoopi caved in to be in this disaster after a huge paycheck.

Plot: a millionaire clones dinosaurs so he can launch missiles at the sun which would kill mankind and start another Ice Age. A female cop named Katie Coltrane and an idiotic dinosaur named Theodore Rex reluctantly team up to stop him after the death of a buddy dinosaur.

The plot is given to you in the beginning of the movie which robs the movie of all its mystery. Then you have to deal with the fact that this movie is actually quite awful. Whoopi looks agitated and is trying to wing it with her performance but to no avail. Theodore Rex is flat out annoying and his bumbling behavior wears thin after five minutes on screen. Most of the jokes revolve around him threatening to bite people and hitting people with his tail(on accident and on purpose). I thought Burglar was bad but it takes a backseat to Theodore Rex: the worst movie of Whoopi's career.

Don't let anybody tell you this monstrosity is bad enough to be enjoyable. I didn't see that when I watched this movie. All I saw was a train wreck that was written by people that must have had some sick admiration for movie Howard The Duck. The humor is on that level and Theodore Rex looks like the inbred cousin of Barney. Utterly painful from start to finish.


I watched this series on PBS back in the eighties and still watch the old tapes every couple of years or so. Very atmospheric and creepy sometimes. This is a very good show as the characters are all well defined and acted. You are drawn into the plot and come to care for these people. The villains are almost laughably evil, especially the Sheriff of Nottingham. Man, I would love to beat the s--t out of that snotty little bastard. Nicholas Grace does an excellent job and must have had a great time being the Sheriff. His whipping boy, Sir Guy, is equally hissable but is also pathetic. Lots of murder and mayhem in this series, along with tons of black magic and Devil worship and things of that nature. I noticed it got an award for children's television which is surprising. If I had kids, I would not let them watch this. Outstanding use of locations in this show also. It is now on DVD, so go out and buy it.


Like many others, I had been attracted to the combination of Pollack, Ford and Scott-Thomas. I had enjoyed the work of Pollack and Ford on Sabrina, a well made film and a careful rewrite of the old material. On hearing that this film was in production I ordered and read the book. Immediately it seemed that this would be a more difficult story to film. The characters are not always sympathetic, there is little if any humor and the author makes numerous plot shortcuts to focus on his principal theme: that, since each would see the other as the only one sharing the unique combination of loss and betrayal brought on by the air crash, the adulterers' completely surprised spouses would seek each other out. Moreover, he imagines that resolution could come to both through a bitter exploration of the adulterers' hidden lives and that this experience of 'thick and thin' could yield a deeper love than each had previously. Although much of the book deals with their bitterness and their building hatred of their former partners, in the end acceptance and forgiveness are found. The film script retains only the air crash and the shared predicament of the spouses. Where the woman is the research aggressor in the book, it is the man in the film and the woman is never a willing co-researcher. The film has a completely new dramatic sub-plot for Harrison Ford which seems even more contrived than the double coincidence of the air crash. The 'congresswoman up for re-election' sub-plot for the woman is also new, yet it works better. Audience the expectations of pure romance or romantic comedy cannot be met because this story focusses on a very bitter pill. Where resolution and forgiveness is achieved in the book, however, lifting the burden of bitterness from the reader and permitting levity, there is no corresponding moment in the film. Although forgiveness is never hinted at, we are left to surmise that healing following a shooting does double duty. Ford's character need not be such an unentertaining man of few words and Scott-Thomas's accent change is a little disconcerting at first. This film is not the dead loss suggested by others. It is, however, a difficult film to appreciate because the rewrite and adaptation to the screen is below the standard previously achieved by the director cast.


If you are going to watch this film because Michael Caine or Michael Gambon are in it then don't bother, it's not their typical role although I found Gambon fantastic. Instead watch it for Dylan Moran I am a fan of everything I have seen him in and this is no exception, I didn't even realise he could act but even the characters which he has to pass himself off as I found completely believable, which is impressive considering the audience knows they are fake.

The plot is genius and although it is not constant laughs all the way through it has plenty of other charms. A great film for people with a sense of humour.


It seems incredible that the same decade which brought Star Wars to the silvery screen disgorged such unutterable tripe as this and many other 'adventure' movies. I am reminded of the similarly lavish, but equally wretched 'Ashanti' outlined elsewhere.

Whatever motivated A-list actors to sign-on for such wastes of celluloid is frankly beyond this writer. They must have been very, very desperate. To be perfectly candid, Roger Moore's appearance in any movie is the kiss of death. Although extremely handsome in his youth, his entire acting career has been predicated upon an ability to raise one eyebrow. Every emotion from A to B is conveyed by this simple stratagem. His were the dog-days of James Bond. Lee Marvin on the other hand has featured in some very worthy outings, perhaps most memorably 'Paint Your Wagon' and 'The Dirty Dozen'. He has a comic streak, but he is much better when he plays it straight.

The excellent Ian Holm is a throwaway, hardly recognisable blacked-up as a mute African. Everyone else just turned up for their pay-cheques.

The only plausible and watchable element is the German cruiser. It looks like a very large model. But it is believably massive and appears authentic - as do its crew. The rest isn't even hokum. The childish comedy jars with the brutality and violence in a story that meanders clumsily about, as if the script itself had had too many whiffs of Lee Marvin's gin. Here is a director who simply doesn't know where he's going. There are hints of 'The African Queen', a snatch from 'The Pride & The Passion', 'Gold', and one or two other rip-offs from movies who's titles don't come readily to mind.

Strangely, I have seen it 3 times, each occasion it has been shown on television when I have been laid low with a cold or the flu. Perhaps that is influencing my judgement - but not much.

Compare it with any Indiana Jones movie and you will see what I mean.

I have given it two stars; one for the battleship and the other because it finally comes to an end, though heaven knows it takes long enough to do that.

Time for another Lemsip, I think.


This movie deserved better. Mike Judge's satirical wit brought to light something too many in this country are trying to deny... we're getting dumber as a society.

Could the 24-hour-a-day Anna Nicole coverage be any more proof? Mike Judge paints a frightening future, where the dumb survive and thrive. Makes you stop and think, and laugh. Can you look at the world and not ask are we getting dumber? Are we being overtaking by the human trash as well as our own trash? (Beware of landslides).

The movie is really funny. I'd tell you more of the plot but I don't want to spoil it.

So why release this film with ZERO promotion? Could it be that the stupid are already taking over?


OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...

I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.

Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of 'running upstairs' stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...

I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a 'Mystery Guest Star' credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize 'the old guy from 'Star Wars''). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.

People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...

2/10.


I thought this was one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. It was a great story line and showed that people are so intricate in all kinds of different ways. Have recommended it to all my friends!! I always enjoy a good story line and this movie had one of the best I've seen in a long time. I could see myself having a daughter and doing the same things that Natalie did to find out more about her life and loves. It showed how we not only have lives with our families ; but also have parts of our lives that we don't share with them - as it may not be in their best interest to know all the details of things we don't do that we are so proud of.

I look forward to another such movie, and will keep my eye out.


If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.

In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.

The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding 'southern accents' I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions?

Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???

They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.


Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on clichés and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance.

I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart.


The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah.

Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap.

Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending 'interview' where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.

It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.

But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!

More accurately...maybe Godard just blows.


I'll not comment a lot, what's to??? Stereotype characters, absolute ignorance about Colombia's reality, awful mise en scene, poor color choice, NOT funny (it supposed to be a comedy and they expect that you will laugh because some distend music it's beside the nonsense scenes), Very poor actors direction (if you see somewhere those people, I mean the interpreters, you'll know they are at least good, but seeing this so call film, it is impossible to guess it), you get tired of the music... this 'comedy' has no rhythm, the only good rhythm in it, it's the rap sing in the final credits....pathetic, doesn't it? etc...etc... It has been a long time I haven't seen a movie so bad!!


Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, 'The Bowery' is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.


This movie surprised me. Some things were 'clicheish' and some technological elements reminded me of the movie 'Enemy of the State' starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value.


I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.

After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.

Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.

Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.

Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.

Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.

We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.

The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww!

The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.

What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.

Sorry Jane.


Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With 'Panic in the Streets', Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, 'On the Waterfront', although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.

Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting 'The Big Easy'. One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.

This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like 'broklynese' than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.

One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.

The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.

The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie.


I loved this movie. My daughter is 3 1/2 and a country girl at heart. There are not any movies for young children. I loved this one because the worst thing in it was when one of the boys said 'stupid'. I applaud them for stepping out and making a true family movie. I rented it the first time we saw it and know looking to buy to add to our collection. My daughter can not stop talking about it. It goes along with our lifestyle. We live in East Texas. I hope to see more family films like this one. She even named one of our calves 'Hokey Pokey Keen'!!! I can not say enough about this movie. I look forward to many more films like this one.


I must admit I wasn't expecting much on this movie. I was surprised I truly enjoyed it as much as I did. The script wasn't oscar material, but it wasn't horrible either. The acting was great by Mark Wahlberg. Jennifer Aniston had a great supporting role, and looked lovely as ever. What made this movie for me was the music. If you do not like 80's glam metal or hair bands, then you probably wont like this movie. Its all about being a rockstar. Some cliche's were present, but didn't bring down the movie at all. I would recommend it to anyone who likes rock and roll and remember to Stand up and Shout!!! 8 of 10 for great acting and awesome music.

Jason


Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.


somewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd.


Right away, this film was ridiculous. Not that it didn't have redeeming aspects For example, the best thing about this film was the beautiful background scenery. Anyone not living on the East Coast should know the South doesn't have beautiful mountains like those found in the West. I knew it was Utah right off the bat, but perhaps Dalton couldn't suppress his English accent, so they had to excuse it by saying this was a southern town. Subverting his accent into a Southern one was easier. Sure the film has plot twists, but its phony sense of place was something I couldn't get past. It's not like Utah doesn't have meth labs... so why the writers thought it necessary to pretend it was in the South is beyond me.

One other thing in action pictures always puzzles me. Why do they always make the 'cocking' sound effect when the character pulls out an automatic handgun? It seemed every other sound effect in this movie was a 'chuk-chich' signifying a 9mm was loaded and ready to fire. Of course, the weapons already had rounds chambered so this was unnecessary.

Lastly, the pyrotechnics were WAY over the top. But hey, this film was targeted to a certain 'market segment' I suppose... It's too bad. Each of the actors can act, but this film was lame.


This doesn't quite plumb the depths of Creepshow 3, but it comes close. It also uses the same technique of using some of the same actors in multiple roles throughout the anthology, which is distracting to say the least.

It also rather irritating rips off The Twilight Zone (with the bookshop being comparable to Serling's later Night Gallery). Unfortunately, the producers & writers forgot that Serling would build up sympathy for his characters before messing them over. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic or interesting until the last segment.

Framing story: Adam West is... well, himself. He doesn't go the Bruce Wayne/Batman campy 60s route, but he rarely does. He simply plays the not-particularly-enigmatic 'Jay' (there's an ominous spine-chilling name to compare to the likes of Dr. Terror, Eramus, and The Cryptkeeper), and makes some mildly awkward/creepy statements.

Abernathy: Seen Rod Serling's 'A Stop in Willoughby'? Then you've seen this. The red herring of the nutso wife is introduced to no purpose, but even the main character's friend identifies him as a wimp. As well directed as can be expected, but basically incoherent.

Nex's Diner: Reminiscent of various Serling time travel stories, mixed with Steve Allen's 'A Meeting of Minds.' Most of the actors aren't too bad (except for Josh Astin as Cassius, who manages to walk, talk and even breathe awkwardly), and the idea is mildly interesting. But like Abernathy, it doesn't go anywhere. The main character raises some relatively reasonable questions, bugs out a bit (who wouldn't?), and for some reason he ends up banished to a nuclear wasteland.

Life Replay: Not a bad little piece, and manages to predate both Click and Creepshow 3. I suppose it says something that people are fascinated by the magical properties of remote controls. The main character is mildly sympathetic. Nothing substantially innovative here, but it's okay.

Fighting Spirit: You see the twist coming a mile away but like the main character, it has some heart and it's a decent story of defeat and redemption.

Finale: So... why do people end up in cold storage in silver lame suits? Don't know. And doesn't make sense. So... all the protagonists wandered into the bookstore and became trapped? Kinda undermines the happy ending with the boxer (thanks, guys!), and the guy in the first segment died. So how did he get trapped? Did he visit the bookstore before he died, got trapped and... didn't die? What? Huh? I supposer this isn't expected to make sense because it's supernatural. But still...

Overall: basically not dissimilar from the two newer Twilight Zone series, or some episodes of Tales From the Darkside or Monsters. The last two stories and part of the second are probably worth your time. But there's nothing really spectacular here.


Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...

Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.

With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...

Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004).


What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other.


Ah, a Kelly/Sinatra sailor-suit musical. So familiar, right? Yes, but this isn't the one you usually hear about. On The Town's that-a-way. But if you stick around, you might learn something. Okay, probably not. Anyway, Anchors Aweigh tells the story of two sailors on a three- or four-day leave. Joe is the 'Sea Wolf' and Clarence, the bookish type, begs Joe to get him a 'dame'. Now, after they're picked up by the coppers they get little Donald home. That's where they meet Susie, that temptress, that jezebel. Just kidding! Clarence falls in love with her. At least he thinks he does. Is he right? Or is he a moron? Or is he just misguided by society? Find out all this and more when you watch {trumpet fanfare} ANCHORS AWEIGH!

P.S. If you want to see Kathryn Grayson be anything but sickeningly sweet, try Kiss Me Kate (1953).


It was AMAZING. As a librarian and an attendee at the New York Library Association's Vitality Fund Event on Thursday night, October 18, I was privileged to see a pre-release screening of the new movie, The Kite Runner. The release of the movie has been delayed because of concerns about the welfare of the child actors involved. I am grateful that the NYLA event was allowed to go on as planned.

Regarding the movie, I feel it was masterfully done. It had as much impact on me, I think, as Stanley Kubrik's A Clockwork Orange, even though it is much less graphic - MUCH less. There is no comparison between the horrendous, shocking violence and rape shown in A Clockwork Orange and the small amount of violence actually shown in Kite Runner; only the subject matter and the implications for the human psyche are comparable. (I have written more details about the violence and child rape and how it was handled on my MySpace blog.) My overall impression was that this film was fantastic; one of the best-made films I have seen. The depiction of the Afghani boys flying their kites captured some of the beauty and grace of an art form unknown to most of the world. The subject matter is intensely serious, and the movie carries the emotions of the audience into that subject matter without many jarring 'Hollywood touches' which have ruined other movies. Although the overturned cart of pomegranates was an obvious bit of symbolism (to me).

Finally, I must mention the excellence of the sound track. The recitation by the boy of poetry by Rumi as two main characters are fleeing the country during the Russian invasion - under terrifying circumstances - truly showed the power of those poems. I urge anyone watching to disregard the subtitles in that scene to the extent that you can, and just listen to the beauty of the language. I don't even know what language Amir is quoting, whether his normal Dari Persian dialect is the same as Rumi's original Persian dialect. Also, please note the sound heard every time a kite line is cut. I found it a profound, distinctive sound, though the librarians who were with me did not notice it at all. I can't help but wonder if kites actually make a sound like that when they are 'cut', or if it gives a sense of the vibration/sound experienced by the kite flyer during competition.


I was very moved by the gentle power of this movie and by the mood it created. I think it should have gotten a great deal more credit than it did. I agree that Michelle Pfeiffer should have been nominated, but I think all the performances were outstanding, and that Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange portrayed the deep affinity and conflicts of sisters with great emotional depth and sensitivity. Although I didn't read the book, I found the modern concept of King Lear very cool. I certainly will never look at the play quite the same way again!


Miss DeCarlo's starring debut has everything the writers could come up with -- from the Franco-Prussian War to the US Civil War, the great American West, San Francisco in its heyday, ballet, opera, vaudeville, stage coach bandits, and a Chinese junk. Just when you thought the plot couldn't get any screwier, it does. It's magnificent, taken tongue in cheek. DeCarlo's character (here called Anna Marie -- NOT Salome, that's the role she dances) is loosely based on the career of the notorious Lola Montez, who was the mistress of the King of Prussia and caused a revolution when he gave her the crown jewels. She did escape to the American west. There is a town in Arizona called 'Salome, Where She Danced,' based on the historical fact that Lola Montez did dance the role of Salome there. StageCoach Cleve and the Russian nobleman who fall under her charms are not historically accurate, nor I assume is the Chinese wise man with the Scottish accent -- but it is one of my favorite all time camp classics and DeCarlo is breathtakingly beautiful throughout.