of the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.

after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.

Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.

the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.

the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.

there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory.


I was very surprised to learn that Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for this film. She seemed very lifeless and completely schooled by the 54(!) year old Bergman in the scenes where they are side by side. If it had been written today, I think that Bergman and the young man Ivan would have wound up together (Ingrid is so much hotter than Goldie...) and the two self-absorbed characters played by Matthau and Hawn would be left out in the cold. But it was written at the end of 60's and feels like Plaza Suite or Barefoot in the Park. However, Matthau's one-liners, Hawn's innocence and Bergman's classy performance make this quite pleasant to watch.


Double Shock is one of the many good Columbo episodes which reaches the level of a good movie.

It has all the elements we like in the Columbo episodes. We get the laugh when Columbo makes something clumsy, and it happens more than once in Double Shock. I can almost guarantee that you will laugh several times if you decide to watch this episode.

We also get the riddle as usual with an almost perfect murder, but something about the murder troubles Columbo. The end is the usual, we get the story about how Columbo solved the mystery.

This is another good Columbo-episode, and I will rate it 7/10. It is close to 8/10.

'Just one more question' - The acting? Peter Falk is very good as usual.


In Iran women are prohibited from attending live sporting events because of the fear that they will be 'corrupted' by bad language, close proximity to thousands of men, and the fact that there are no toilet facilities for women in the antiquated stadiums. Based on an actual incident involving the daughter of the director, Jafar Panahi's Offside follows six girls, disguised as men, who are refused entry into the soccer match in 2005 between Iran and Bahrain, a match that will decide whether or not Iran goes to the World Cup. In a departure from the bleak, minimalist films we have been accustomed to from Iran over the last ten years, Offside is an exuberant comedy that has a patriotic fervor and a universal appeal but contains enough subversive social commentary to warrant its prohibition from screenings in Iran.

Shot with a digital camera using non-professional actors who are more than up to the task, the girls try to sneak into Azadi Stadium in Tehran but are arrested and placed in a holding area outside of the stadium. They are guarded by three young army conscripts (Safdar Samandar, Mohammed Kheir-abadi, and Masoud Kheymeh-kaboud) who express ambivalence about their task but are pledged to follow the rules. The women are soccer enthusiasts, not political activists and cheer for Iran's victory but this does not deter the soldiers from detaining them while they wait for the girls to be transported to the Vice Squad and an uncertain future.

Outspoken rather than acting like victims, they continually question the soldiers about the rationale behind the restrictions, making their absurdity quite obvious. Although they can hear the crowd noise, the women cannot see the action but achieve a minor victory when they persuade one of the soldiers to provide a running commentary on the game. One of the funniest sequences takes place when a female 'prisoner' is escorted to the men's room by a soldier. The young recruit then must cope with a near riot when he has to prevent anyone else from using the facilities while the girl is still inside.

Little by little, to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, that which unites them turns out to be greater than that which divides them and the unlikely antagonists rally behind their country and root for the victory that will send Iran to the World Cup. Although the point is made early and often and the film sags a bit in the middle, Offside makes a telling point about a society where a political elite with a medieval social mentality has to contend with an growing group of educated and politically astute citizens. One can only hope that world pressure and the awakening of its own people will force the Ayatollahs to come to terms with the 21st century.


As other viewers have mentioned, this film was an interesting experiment in photography. The colors are comic book bold. I think the director got carried away with his 'artistic vision' over the look of the film instead o badly needed attention to content. Despite its stellar cast, the performances are lackluster and the story nearly incoherent. Madonna was likely cast purely as a stunt to get pre-release press. A good thing as her appearance here lent some credence to her album 'I'm Breathless (Music inspired by the film Dick Tracy)' which was a stratospheric hit (due in large part to the inclusion of dance-hit 'Vogue' - which is not in, nor has the slightest relation to this film). I'd guess the major portion of money from this film came from tie-ins to Madonna's 'I'm Breathless' album.

If you watch it at home, by end-titles, you'll think 'there's two hours out of my life I'd like to have back.' Save yourself the wasted time - do not bother with this.


A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.

The anti-Semetism in this film/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.

Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino.


This episode apparently grew out of the cold war. There has been a holocaust but somehow Elizabeth Montgomery and Charles Bronson have come through unscathed. It then becomes a battle for turf. She is attracted to him and vice versa, but the instinct for survival takes over. It's a quiet, slow moving, chess battle as they attempt to achieve trust. They come to truces but distrust takes over and they start again. Of course, the male female role of the sixties comes into play and modern viewers might find that her need to follow him is a bit offensive. But it still is captivating and interesting. Because she doesn't speak, we don't know here mind very well, but in the end we can guess.


SPOILERS AHEAD------------------------- Mel has got it going on. From the opening credits to the ending credits this movie has straight laughs. Dave Chappel shows why he is a comedic force. Cary Eewes carries the movie most of the time, but the supporting cast fills in strong when the plot is drawn away from Robin Hood. Right from the beginning this movie proclaims it's self not to be taken seriously. If you took a time machine and gave the characters thoughts of modern day antics you would get this movie. What makes this movie special you say? Throughout the movie you see blinken and acuhu walk beside each other becoming great friends as Robin Hood's sidekicks. But, it Blinken is never told or fails to grasp that he is black, until the crowd says ' a black sheriff', Blinken replays 'He's black'. That is a timeless scene. Simple one of the most enteraining movies of our time.


I must not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.

The book is one of the five greatest suspense/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.


The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.


The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.

The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.

Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike 'Enemy at the Gates' the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.


i like full house and step by step the same. i don't have a favorite episode i just like certain scenes. but some scenes i don't like but i haft to say the reason i started watching this show is because it had Suzanne Summers in it. and my most favorite character was Dana. and Karen could be a snob sometimes, but she was good character also. i just like to watch family shows instead of trash that has a lot of drugs and violence. this show is a lot like other family shows where one of the parents are always strict about curfews and dates. other than step by step, my other favorite shows are full house, Sabrina the teenage witch, gomer pyle usmc, the andy griffith show, and dukes of hazzard.


This scared the hell out of me when i was a teenager. Now I find it more amusing than scary, but with some pretty unsettling moments and with a kind of sleazy quality to it that I like. And, come to think of it, the plot is rather disgusting actually...but handled with some kind of taste. If there is a problem with this movie, it is that there are HUGE gaps where nothing exciting or interesting happens. Also, the ending goes on forever, making a potentially tense climax seem silly after a while with Barbara Bach screaming and screaming. The 'monster', after it is exposed, isn't very scary either unfortunately. The somewhat drab look of the movie also works against it, making it appear as a TV-movie more than something made for theaters. But it is an example of films that are rarely made nowadays so I urge horror fans to watch it and feel a bit nostalgic...


I have never panned a film on-line, but I felt moved to do so, after seeing this one. One doesn't show up at someone's funeral and say to the bereaved, 'My relatives died, so why should I care about yours?'

Minus the propaganda, there was little, if anything, that could be called 'art.' As the daughter of deaf parents, I was particularly annoyed by the use of deafness as a gimmick. Any deaf person feeling a vibration of that immensity would likely have investigated, not ignored it.

The word 'chutzpah' comes to mind. As a writer, there are few subjects I would stay away from: the Holocaust is one; this is another. I wish these movie makers had not been so arrogant (and inept).


Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.

Robi Chernitsky


This is the version that even the author hated, because it's so schmaltzy. They gave it a 'happy ending' and changed a lot of the dialogue, and it's just a big pile of saccharine. The 'stage manager' is quite good, I believe he originated the role, but everyone else falls into that acting style of the 40's that is really just posing. The one great feature- the music. This has one of the best scores ever recorded, and it's worth seeking out in a record shop. Overall I think the 1989 Spalding Grey/ Eric Stoltz/ Penelope Miller version is far superior.


Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff


This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's 'Nashville,' Lumet's 'Network'), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ('Chicago' and 'The Hours' will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison  his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with 'F' bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of 'One,' a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.


Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like 'Star!' and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until 'The Tamarind Seed' came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from ****


I was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.

It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.

The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.

The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.

It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations.


This is a catastrophe movie set in London . Starting multiple hurricane,superstorm and tornadoes on Scotland are displaced towards East , downing England coast and later the South. After several hours of heavy rainful , the London barrier above Thames is short from running over, and it paves the way for disaster. Then a colossal tidal-wave travel relentless down East causing devastation and lives of millions of Londoners are in danger. At the center of the story is a climatologist(Tom Courtenay) a climatologist who tries to save London from the effects of giant wave , trying to convince the authorities that the town dike was unsafe, furthermore a marine engineer (Robert Carlyle) and his ex-wife Samantha(Jessalyn Gilsig) . They are trapped into the barrier and dropped to sea .Meantime the secret government agency HQ ruled by Nash(Joanne Whalley) under direct orders of deputy Minister(David Suchet) attempt to control many displaced and avoid more dead, approximately 200.000. They have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.

Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting. Magnificent Tom Courtenay as a climatologist who predicts catastrophe and excellent Robert Carlyle and Jessalyn Gilsig as ex-matrimony rekindling their love. The movie packs impressive flood scenes brought to life by the breathtaking computer generator special effects, better than the classic of the 70s , such as 'Earthquake, Inferno Towering' and similarly to 'Armaguedon and Day after tomorrow'. Although isn't a clear denounce, we know that the flood is caused by the greenhouse effect and global warming which originates the ozone hole. The motion picture is well directed by Tony Mitchell. I would recommend this movie to people who like disaster movies. Another adaptations about floods, are the following : 'Flood(1976)'directed by Earl Bellamy with Robert Culp and Barbara Hershey; 'Hard rain(1998)' directed by Mikael Salomon with Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater; ' Flood : a river's rampage(1979)' directed by Bruce Pittman with Richard Thomas


After watching the Next Action Star reality TV series, I was pleased to see the winners' movie right away. I was leery of such a showcase of new talent, but I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled. Billy Zane, of course, was his usual great self, but Corinne and Sean held their own beside him. It was also nice to see Jared and Jeanne (also from the competition) in their cameo roles. Sean's character, not Billy's, is the hunted, and his frustration at discovering new rules in the game is well played. Corinne walks the tightrope well between her character liking Sean's and only being in it for the money. I loved how the game was played right to the last second. And then beyond! Not a great movie, but an entertaining one all the way and a great showcase for two folks on their first time out of the gate.


A touching movie about a talented woman who struggles with a society and a love that structurally underestimate her. The issues are subtly addressed and timeless, as many of the depicted difficulties between man and woman still exist in Dutch society today. This movie is a tribute to all modern women without dwelling on feminism. Not only the story is well told, the acting and the scenery are great as well.


Cuba Gooding Jr. is back on top! Jesus, he did a great job in this film! I LOVED this movie. Its one of those feel good movies that makes you want to run out and volunteer at a mission or something. Anyway, I would recommend seeing this movie in a heartbeat! Well worth the price of admission. And as for Cuba Gooding Jr., just give him his next Oscar right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.

Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.

Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy 'insurance' on Stan.

Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of 'A Chump at Oxford' or 'Bohemian Girl' or 'Sons of the Desert' instead.


***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.

With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!

We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.

Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.

The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them.


Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. 'Fires on the Plain' shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as 'monkey meat.' The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima?


I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.

These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.

I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.


Anyone that is looking for an episode of 'Law and Order' or 'CSI' would have to look elsewhere as the most basic elements of police or forensics work were totally ignored in this case.

A murder took place, and all the police did was to grab a 15-year-old boy off the street and take him to the only witness - a 65-year-old man - and say is this the guy who did it? Sure, the old man thought that the kid in the back of the police car had to be guilty. never mind that he looked nothing like the real killer and was dressed completely differently. He must have shrunk, reversed his age by 5-10 years and changed clothes.

The police made absolutely no effort - and they admitted it! The did no forensics on any of the evidence, they questioned no other witnesses, and they beat a confession out of a 15-year-old.

The saddest thing about this compelling look at the criminal justice system is that it occurred right down the road in Jacksonville, Florida. Let everyone now start talking about 'Southern justice.'


So I'm at home, flipping channels one night, and I come across this man wearing heels and makeup, standing in front of a colored background on HBO. Naturally, I did a double-take and decided I'd watch for a little while. I didn't change the channel until he was finished, it was so incredibly hilarious. The next time it was on, I made sure to tape it so I could watch it over and over again, and it has remained one of my favorite things to watch. During the first couple of minutes, you can tell that the audience isn't quite sure what to think, but he quickly wins them over with his incredible humor and wit. While many stand-up comedians mesh together in my brain, Eddie Izzard stands out as one of the best. His style is incredibly refreshing, and it is nice to hear jokes about things like history and puberty when most comedians stick to current events. His show stayed with me afterwards. I went to Italy over the summer, and all I could think about while I was there was how 'Italians are always on scooters going 'CIAO...'' 10 out of 10. See it. You won't regret it.


When I first watch this series, the impression I got was that the characters were charming and funny, Lorelai and Rory in particular were witty and intelligent conversationalist albeit a bit too talkative. After watching it for some time, however, my opinion changed.

The main characters slowly revealed themselves to be self-centered self-obsessed narcissists, who treated tiny wounds to their pride as the worst insults in their existence. For example, Rory wouldn't speak to her mother for months when Lorelai didn't consult her on her impulsive marriage, while Lorelai dumped Luke for simply wanting a little time to adjust to his new life circumstances. These people are shallow, see themselves as the center of the universe where everyone else should behave exactly according to how their own rigid rules, and if they don't, they will hold grudges against them for an eternity. They don't want to see other people's problems and treat the smallest slight as the gravest offence. Most of the characters appear to lack the ability to behave in a grown-up way. They think they should do whatever that they wanted and everyone else be damned.

The series is character-based, so when the main characters became so unlikeable the show also became impossible to watch. I still have the rest of the series, but I doubt if I will ever finish watching them. I will also hold anyone who think highly of the show and its awful characters with the greatest suspicion - they must just as horrid as Lorelai et al.


I've seen soap operas more intelligent than this movie. Bad characters, bad story and bad acting. It would be a love story between a man and a mermaid. Really awful.


German-born Turkish director Faith Akin captures in his film the endless variety of the different styles in music and songs in Istanbul, a city that is a bridge between East and West, a city that is uniquely located on both sides of the Bosporus, in Europe and in Asia. Kurdish dirges represented by Aynur, who performs her own brand of Kurdish gospel music, passionate and melodic. We are introduced to Romany instrumentals, to Orhan Gencebay, who has been called the Elvis of Arabesque music - sounds of music are heard everywhere in the city as Faith Akin takes us into underground clubs, to the street performers, and to recording sessions. German bassist Alexander Hacke who comes to Istanbul to play and to learn about Turkish music quotes Confucius, 'To understand the place, you have to listen to the music it plays'. Akin's fine documentary does just that - gives us 90 minutes of music that helps to cross the bridges. For me, watching the movie was especially interesting because I recently visited Istanbul as a part of my vacation and spent four days there. The city fascinated me by its images, colors, crowds, vibrancy and visual beauty. Now, I can add the sounds of music to the ever-changing portrait of Istanbul.


The movie may be great. I just watched it last night, but feel unable to give an honest opinion of it because I read the book first. The book is so much better than the movie that I was disappointed with the film. If you plan to watch 'Of Human Bondage,' don't read the book beforehand. On the other hand, the book is so good, and contains so much more than the love affair Phillip has with Mildred, you could still enjoy it after seeing the movie. I do not make this claim lightly. I average reading a book every 4 days, and read such disparate authors as Danielle Steel, Ovid, Faulkner, Plato, and Shakespeare. 'Of Human Bondage' gets my vote as one of the top ten novels ever written.


This game is an action/adventure with combat. There are quite long periods with no combat but other times, you have to get rid of various kinds of monsters. The monsters are not like anything you would see in real life, and they have to be gotten rid off in order to continue with your quest. The whole game is a quest. You play Adam Randall whose father contacts him from the beyond and asks him to come and save him. The game is from the mid 1990's and has to be played in DOS. I used Dosbox and was able to play the game quite well. The graphics are not as good as some games even of the time, mainly because the resolution is not high and some scenes look quite blocky, but others look batter, but don't let that put you off the game. The game is very imaginative, its long and can make you jump when unexpected monsters appear out of nowhere. Not for young kids who likely wouldn't be interested anyway, but over 13 or 14 might like this game. Its a horror\mystery\action\adventure\combat combination.I thought it was a great game. Its had to find now. maybe Ebay. But remember its a DOS game and you would not be able to play it on todays faster computers. would be hard to play on fast computers unless you use Dosbox. Oh, and the acting is very good too.


It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.

I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.

Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.


The directing behind this film was fantastic for a comedy. Many of the scenes appear to be out of a comic book and much darker (visually -- not story wise) than what I expected. Granted, this may not be the funniest movie ever made, especially if you are into very crude sexist jokes as this has very little of that (compared to others like Something About Mary or American Pie). As you rewatch it, several jokes stand out and get funnier. If you have ever read a comic book or watched a comic book-type movie (Batman, X-Men, etc.) and liked them, you will probably enjoy the subtle humor that continues throughout the movie. If you didn't like them, you may like the respectful ridicule that this film has for those. If you did like this movie, the dvd has some cool extras. (8/10)


When Melville's 'Pierre; or The Ambiguities' hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since 'Moby Dick' a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of 'POLA X'. Newspapers even published headlines like: 'Melville Insane!' which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in 'Moby Dick' and 'Pierre,' one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal 'Moby Dick.' He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: 'The ambiguities' is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

'POLA X' is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than 'Moby Dick,' before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.


The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie.


Vampire cyborgs rule the world and use the blood of humans as fuel, however there is going to be a shift of power thanks to a renegade android (Kris Kristofferson) and a warrior woman (Kathly Long) as they face off against Lance Henriksen and Gary Daniels (Who play the cyborgs in this ridiculous movie) Of all the questions left unanswered by this dreadful movie, the most poignant is Who's idea was it to cast country singer Kris Kristofferson as a cyborg warrior who is able to give as good as he gets. No, don't get me wrong I could see Kristofferson as a vigilante or something but not as a cyborg. Strangely one suspects that this was written for Dolph Lundgren, however Lundgren must have had the wisdom to not do it. However despite the disastrous casting, Kristofferson is easily the most enjoyable thing about the movie. He gives a performance far more human then the inexpressive Kathy Long. (And Kristofferson is playing a robot) despite the miscasting, Kristofferson provides the few moments of interest. Lance Henriksen is slumming and Gary Daniels is wasted but basically Knights is baffling failure. You stand back in horror wondering who the hell thought that this was even a good idea on paper. (This is a movie where a dismembered Kristofferson is fighting robots in a backpack) Worst of all it ends in a what if sequel, thankfully this has yet to materialize although I still have nightmares at the proposition of the likelihood of such an event.

* out of 4-(Bad)


I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.

The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.

The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.

I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even 'Extreme Heist' was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.


The main reason to see this film is Warren William, who is in top form as the shyster campaign manager. He is electric, constantly finding ways to fool the public and defeat the opposing party in the midst of the biggest disasters. William is a great actor -- I feel he never got his due. Bette Davis as his girlfriend also shines in an under-written role. Personally, I found Guy Kibbee not quite right as the lame-brained candidate that William and the others are trying to foist on the public. He seemed more like an empty canvas than a person. I would have preferred to see a real character emerge rather than a non-character. The story itself is implausible, silly and clichéd. But Warren William and Bette Davis are well worth watching.


Carlos Mencia just plain isn't funny! His show is painful to watch because of that. His sketches/parodies are all very horrible, and this really just feels like a filler for the Chapelle Show, which while I'm not a big fan of that, it is much funnier than this trash. Carlos Mencia gives the stupid speeches and he all too often depends on finishing his monologues with a retarded voice and going 'der, der der.' It's just not funny. He often, when talking to others, makes puns. They are horrible and painful. When people don't laugh, he blames them...why would anyone laugh, he's not funny. He has an immature sense of humor in everything he does on this show, it's amazing that anyone but 3 year olds watch this. One of my least favorite things he does, is water down every topic and make it seem like a joke! I hope that this racist idiot gets taken off the air as soon as possible because he's dumbing down a station that doesn't need to be dumbed down anymore.


Outstanding performance by Tantoo Cardinal. She carries this movie alone. Rip Torn is great but just a shadow to Tantoo. A bitter sweet story of a woman who loves a very stubborn man. Beautiful, funny, sad, touching, a must see film.


In a world full of films -- like 'You Got Served' -- that blow your mind with its vast amounts of errors, you'd never figure that there would be worse films... until now. Ron Hall's 'Vampire Assassins' does more than cheese you off. It KNOWS that you are mad at it. First: there are no assassins in this movie. In fact, there's only one good guy fighting in the whole movie. Second: The location... is basically one location: some jackass's house (or basement. It's up to you.). Third: The special effects (bluntly stated) can kiss my ass. Fourth: The acting beats 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' in the worst-acting-ever category. Ron Hall can't act to save his life. Finally (and definitely not the smallest problem): THE EDITING. The person who edited this film better hope that I never find him. The cuts and shots are HORRENDOUS!!!! Other issues: Lighting (virtually none), the fact that the guy on the cover isn't even in the movie, and the fact that this film exists.

To sum this film up, let us just say that I tortured the DVD copy before taking it back to Hollywood Video (don't worry! I used the MVP membership, so it was free!). NEVER SEE THIS FILM!!!!


Wes Craven has been created a most successful killer-thriller movies of all time. After watching he's movies, you will find your new fears. People don't know, which Wes Craven's thriller movie is the best, because they all different.

In this movie, Lisa is terrorize by fellow-traveler. He coercible her to kill and if she don't do this, Jack will kill her father. Lisa is in the huge mess, because whatever she choose, she will kill.

Acting was unreal. Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy acted unbelievable good. The emotions was in right choose. Idea and script of this movie is great too...

Sometimes it reminds a 'Scream', but he definitely better, than both 'Screams' sequels together.

And what can I say - this is the best killer-thriller movie in 21's century yet...


I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.


One of the worst movies ever made. Let's start with the superficial: Joaquin Phoenix is, first of all, too fat to be a rookie fireman. The NYFD does not recruit Pillsbury dough boys. John Travolta has a bad dye job, and the strange gleam in his eye throughout the movie made me think that he was on some sort of extended Scientology bender. The plot hits on all the tropes and clichés of what the average Joe believes life as a firefighter is really like: they all get drunk, get into fights, have a hard time expressing their emotions, their wives all stay at home crying, they all have father issues, everyone has a Boston accent, et cetera. An execrable piece of schwarmerei that plays on our lingering cultural hero worship of firefighters after 9-11 -- which was, by the way, valid cultural hero worship. This film unfortunately presents no believable heroes to worship.


Two young friends grow up together in Afghanistan. The events of their lives drive them apart and one of them has now been living in the USA for a good number of years. As he receives a phone call it is clear that he has to return, for there is trouble in the air.

This is a film about life lasting friendships, mistakes and making up again. But also a film about darkness, pain and endurance. From the pleasurable young days of growing up and playing games to the falling apart, back to the playing of games. This is a slow film, but not too slow.

It plays on emotions and that is quite right for a drama, but it does so a bit too much for my liking. This makes it too much of a tearjerker, loosing it a bit of the quality it carries. It is still good, but not fantastic.

7 out of 10 kites ran aground


Seriously, I don´t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,

the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness.

Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice 'That was fun!'.

Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it.


One reviewer says of those who might not like this film that 'it will only be appreciated by film goers who weary of film as diversion'. This, I feel, is rather unfair to those of us who find it boring.

I have not become weary or disillusioned with film or with film makers, but found this tedious and self indulgent. But then, it's true, I'm not too big into deep meaningfulness. I feel that it may have great meaning for those in the know, you know.

It is very slow and it spends a long time in trying to make its individual points, using imagery, indeed, to do so. But in such days as these, it seems possible that a film like this might be the kind of thing that you'd come across in one of those dark and daunting booths in modern art galleries, rather than on the screen of a popular cinema setting.


This film has not been seen by me in quite a few years. It came on the Disney Channel in the wee hours of the morning. I stayed up to watch it, and found it even more entertaining than the first time. The story, the scenery and the characters are as good as they come. I know that if anyone takes the time to view this film, they will find it definitely worth seeing a second time. It's very memorable in more ways than one. I would recommend this film to anyone because it is both entertaining and educational for all concerned.

s


For real though, this game is where it's at. I'm 20 years old and that's basically where it started for me. 4-bit graphics was fabulous. I hope you all remember this game with as much adoration as I do. That Bluto is a real meany.


RKS films always have been commercial films which suited the 90's, from GHAYAL, DAMINI

His last few films KHAKEE were watchable FAMILY was crap

This film is a decent film but could be better

The problem lies in there is lot of old fashioned clichés thrown in and many scenes come out too filmy and lengthy

Ajay Devgan's character is shown very well but his character gets heroic which could be subtle

The lengthy flashback could be avoided as thigns are simply long drawn

Even the street play in the second half look too simplistic and hardly a solution though the message is well brought out

Direction by RKS is decent, though it could be better Music is okay

Ajay Devgan looks the part very well and is at ease playing his part mostly though at times he does look ill at ease in light scenes He excels in dramatics Vidya excels in the scene front of media Pankaj has a not proper defined role and too filmy yet he excels in his part Darshan Jariwala hams as the old age villain the rest are okay


Dick Tracy is one of my all time favorite films. I must admit to those that haven't seen it. You will either really love it or really hate it. It came out a year after the success of Batman. So everyone's expectations were so high that many were let down simply because the plot is so simple. But its based on a comic strip...what did you expect? Creatively, this movie is amazing! The sets, make-up, music, costumes, and the impressive acting make this film fantastic. The film has bloodless violence and no bad language - that's something rare these days. Directed, produced, and stars Warren Beatty as the ace crime fighter going up against Al Pacino's evil Big Boy Caprice and his mob of thugs. Madonna steals the show as the seductive Breathless Mahoney. This is one of the best characters Madonna has ever played. She has the best one liners I've heard! Madonna fans would love it! One of the coolest things about the film is that they only used seven colors to make it look like a comic strip. This film is truly a piece of artwork that is sadly overlooked by the public. To sum things up, this film brings out the child in all of us. It's a film that will leave you smiling at the end.


This film was reeeeeeallyyyy bad! Was it meant to be a comedy as I couldn't help laughing the whole way through it? what a waste of two hours! Donald Sutherland was wooden not that he was alone, everyone else was just as bad...and how miscast was linda hamilton???


I caught the last half of this movie on cable one night and was struck by just how morbid it was. Even when one of the two victims is at his most deteriorated, the camera keeps going. the lingering shots of his corpse being uncovered and his concentration-camp figure being zipped into a body bag are both moving and depressing. don't watch this movie if your already depressed. then again don't watch it if your feeling really good.


Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the 'lessons' that are learned by the heroes/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah, blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8/10 rating)


Before seeing this, I was merely expecting another mediocre soft core copy of the much imitated 'Emmanuelle' series starring Sylvia Kristel. It was really surprising how good this one turned out to be. It actually has a story, and it is very romantic indeed. What makes 'Yellow Emanuelle' so good is it's leading heroine, the beautiful and exotic Chai Lee. She plays her character, Emy Wong so sweetly, that the viewer just has to feel something for her when her dreams crash down around her. Emy Wong is a much-respected doctor, statuesque, with a regal quality. She comes from an important old family, where ancient customs are still practiced. Emy will remain a virgin until she is married, to a man she has never met. The beautiful doctor seems OK with this arranged marriage. It is simply how it is done in her world. However she does not plan on meeting and falling in love with the British pilot who ends up under her care in the hospital where she works. Emy decides to do away with custom, and she gives herself to her Western man. But only after a very long courtship, as Doctor Wong is anything but an easy woman. Her pilot, George, is a good guy, and promises to marry Emy, so that she doesn't lose her respectability and place in her rigid society. Neither one counts on a third party, one Ilona Staller, who destroys their relationship through a series of vicious games. Emy is made to believe that she has been abandoned by her man, that he only played a game with her in order to sleep with her. Her place in society is gone, she has been debased. The film takes a surprisingly dramatic and depressing turn as this proud, elegant woman gives up her career, as well as a sweet relationship with her caring father, and succumbs to a life of drinking and prostitution. I was surprised to find myself so engrossed in this operatically tragic tale. I was on the edge of my seat when George blows back into town, and unknowingly walks into a hotel where his beautiful Emy is working as a prostitute! Classic drama. I imagine many viewers were a bit frustrated by all this drama. One would expect lots of sex and nudity here, but there is not much. And when there is, it is totally non-exploitative, and very artsy and soft-core. If you are a fan of the first Emmanuelle, with Sylvia Kristel, than you most likely will appreciate this, lesser known classic. I was especially impressed by the extra attention to details. The whole segment where Emy takes George to her fathers house on the island is really nice. Her father shows George, and the viewer his impressive collection of Bonzai trees. He has a whole miniature forest built out of these amazing trees. Totally unexpected. After catching it on late night cable TV years ago, I spent much time searching the internet for a copy of the film. When i finally got it i found that the video version was longer. More sex? No, more melodrama. For the DVD release there is a subplot about George suddenly keeling over with some unknown deadly disease! I actually preferred the cable version better. I am glad that this rare gem has been released finally on DVD. I must also mention the beautiful cinematography and the bizarre and catchy 70's soundtrack. While watching this one you just get the feeling that you are watching something very rare, and quite special. I recommend it to thoughtful viewers who don't need sex and violence to maintain their interest.


I agree with the above comment, I love the realism in this, and in many movies (not just movies on eating disorders) the producers seem to forget that. They take an every day problem and create a hugely dramatic scene and then come the end of the movie everything is perfect again, which I dislike because its not reality. Not meaning to say things can't get better, and not meaning to say things don't in this movie, but it doesn't spend most of the movie creating all these problems, and come the end of the movie everything is perfect again. When people have eating disorders people don't just admit it and want to get better, and then life is peachy, it takes time, and I like how in this movie we grow with the characters, we go through the difficulties with them, getting better and worse, because it is a very important part of the movie. It gets into the minds of people with eating disorders, and shows the complications and pain, in a very realistic way, and I loved that. I also love how it shows The secrecy and betrayal people feel when suffering from eating disorders, it is scary to see how people react when they find out, especially if they approve of it. I thought this movie was very touching and beautiful and well told, and defiantly one of my favourites.


Huge, waddling, grimacing tree trunk menaces fake 'natives' on a 'Pacific Atoll' (looking suspiciously like Southern CA...), reaking havok and revenge. Unlike the silly stumps in 'Navy VS The Night Monsters', the Tabonga is actually a full-grown man-tree. Well, grown in 2 days: moost have od'ed on those Miracle Grow spikes...Anycow, it comes not from Hell, but from the grave of a fake native, Kimo(Greg Palmer, 'The Zombies of Mora Tau'), murdered by the native elders for hanging out with those awful American scientists. The scientists include Dr. William Arnold (Tod Andrews, 'Hang 'em High', 'Beneath the Planet of the Apes') and Professor Clark(John McNamara,'War of the Colossal Beast'). Rounding out the cast is Linda Watkins('The Parent Trap') as the obnoxious Mrs. Kilgore, the obvious comic relief spurting out an obvious fake 'cockney' accent. A stellar cast indeed!! Anycow, because his doughy, vacant wife, Korey, played amateurishly by Suzanne Ridgeway('Love's A-Poppin''), helps set him up, Kimo declares his revenge on her and all of the elders. Then, the dopey American scientists uproot the tree, bring it back to life 'in the name of science', & allows it to SLOWLY amble about the island, killing off everyone who has done him wrong. Of course, we all know that evil monsters carry off fair maidens, so the Tabonga grabs plucky female scientist Dr. Terry Mason(Tina Carver, 'Hell on Frisco Bay') & waddles off with her. Vine-ally, a good shot with a Remmington hits a knife lodged in the Tabonga, and it falls over dead into the quicksand. This laughably foolish cowncept is one of the all-time cheesy howlers. The Tabonga is arguably the slowest monster in moovie history, right up there with the clanky, over-built robot from 'Robot Monster vs the Aztec Mummy' and the perversly slow carpet monster from 'Creeping Terror'. Try not to laugh as you watch the Tabonga toss fake natives down hills & into quicksand, dodge spears, and lumber slowly about the 'island'. Shady writing, wooden performances, and sappy direction all point that this pulpy fertilizer has far mooore bark than bite. This tepid pile of wood chips was the last hurrah from long-time editor-turned-director Dan Milner, who quickly vanished into well-deserved obscurity following this film. You herd it through the grapevine from the MooCow first: 'From Hell it Came' is a compost classic!! :


I got this as a complete set of 9 episodes on 5 DVDs. I knew nothing about the history of the series. Season 1 of the series has the pilot episode as episode 1 and then 3 more episodes for a total of 4. Season 2 lists 5 episodes with the last being Beyond Good and Evil with an original Air Date of 7 December 1998. The other 4 episodes on season 2 were broadcast from December 1997 to Febrausry 1998. So Beyond Good and Evil looks like season 3 episode 1, except there are no more episodes in season 3.

Spoilers here. The two main characters of the first 8 episodes, Dr. Iain McCallum (John Hannah) and Dr. Angela Moloney (Zara Turner), are missing from this episode being replaced by Dr. Dan Gallagher (Nathaniel Parker) and Dr. Charley Fielding (Eva Pope). I recognized Nathaniel Parker from the series The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, which began in 2001. So they were planning to have a season 3 but only one episode was broadcast.

It seems odd to try to continue a series named after the main character, McCallum, when the main character is gone from the series. So they might have been planning a return of Dr. Iain McCallum, but when that failed the series was canceled. I have no inside information on this but I do see that both John Hannah and Nathaniel Parker were involved in other projects in 1999. Does anyone have any information on this?


There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.

The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.

James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.

The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either.


Somehow a woman working with a scientist puts round metal balls into people's mouths that supposedly changes their personality but in reality turns them into crazed, zombie-like killers. The 'guinea pigs' for the experiment are scantily-clad, nubile young women in desperate need of acting lessons. This movie is awful, atrocious, and amazingly bad. It has little to no logic in the script. You really will have trouble following what is going on. It has no special effects. The computer screen that is supposedly representing a huge scientific advancement looks nothing more than an old Atari screen. And what is even worse is that there is also a puppet with strands of felt hair(looks like a lonely kid at summer camp made it) named George that is like a personal servant/confidant to Jessica(the leading 'actress'). Throughout the movie you will be subjected to the idiotic, sophmoric utterings of this puppet. But wait...you also get loads of softcore, unerotic, barely nude scenes with the girls with some bar guys. All the while a most annoying soundtrack plays in the background like some kind of spiritual discovery has taken place. None of the actors are good. There are just varying degrees of bad. The gore and 'horror' aspects are especially ineptly filmed. The film really looks like an adolescent put it together. No coincidence Henry Sala, the director by name but not by trade, has not made another film. I was bored almost into a coma watching this stupid, silly, dreck! And how bout the ending? What happened? If you know let me in on the secret because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. All I know is that I lost the time spent watching this garbage that made the beginning of my weekend a real nightmare of a bore!


It's pretty clear that the director and production crew set out to paint a less than flattering picture of the Palestinian girl and her family. The film and it's website tries to imply that Ayat has a secret reason for blowing herself and Rachel up- a boyfriend problem- perhaps pregnancy. Neatly glossed over is the fact that Ayat had herself just witnessed the death of a close friend at the hands of the Israelis'-just outside her home. Gosh,so why on earth would a young, pretty, intelligent girl with plans for college go and do such a thing? Could it be that the hormonal, emotional teenager was traumatized by seeing seeing someone she loved die before her very eyes? This detail merits all of 5 seconds in the movie. Another neatly sidestepped detail is that Avigail Levy, Rachels' mother, could have prevented the destruction of the building the Akhras family lived in(along with 22 other families). One distinctly gets the impression that she's offering this as a 'concession' - should Mrs. Akhras agree to speak with her.'why should I?' she says.(since the movie was made the home has been destroyed- apparently the interview didn't result in what she wanted- so bring on the bulldozers)Mrs Levy claimed that she 'wanted the movie to be cathartic as well as a symbol of hope, a chance to transcend entrenched hatreds'- instead she uses it as an excuse to harangue Ayats mother, while dangling the house as a carrot.Moreover although the two women live only 4 miles apart, she is so out of touch with the realities of the occupation for her Palestinian neighbors, that she really thinks that Mrs. Akhras can just drop over for a cup of coffee?Please.And she forgoes the one chance she had to meet Mrs. Akhras in person and see what kind of life she lives.(the Akras family originally came from Jaffa, but now live crammed into a refugee camp only 4 miles from where the Levys live in comparative luxury.Any sympathy I would have had for the obviously well to do Mrs. Levy is dissolved by her air of self-righteous bitchiness.By contrast, Ayats mother comes off as kind,forthright and loving- in spite of the best efforts by the post production crew to paint her and her family as monsters. Heck even the music and sound design was one sided- I guess the muezzin sings ALL day every day 4 miles from the Levy family home, always in a sharply contrasting key from the sappy new-age music that scores this drab excuse for a documentary.Also there is the small matter of translations - Mrs. Levy DIRECTLY addresses the camera in English when she has something worked out to say ahead of time, Hebrew when she doesn't. Mrs.Akhras spoke only Arabic which received sometimes a TRANSLATION, sometimes TRANSLITERATION, always awkward, and very suspect for a supposedly objective movie.They also 'sweated' her under the lights, while Mrs. Levy sat in (air conditioned) comfort.Rotten editing for Mrs. Akhras' segments too. I gave it a 2 because I liked Ayats mother and father, who seemed like good decent people. Shame on HBO, producers and director, for releasing such a stink-bomb.


Famous for introducing the world to Hedy Lamarr and full frontal nudity, but it's oh so much more. In fact, this is one of the pinnacles of cinematic poetry, up there with some of the seminal works of 1930s art cinema, in the same prestigious group as Under the Roofs of Paris, Tabu, Olympia, and even L'Atalante. It's nearly a silent, relying mostly on its miraculous images, and also its fantastic, symphonic score by Giuseppe Becce. It's a masterpiece of cinematography and music, yes, and also of editing, direction, writing, and acting. A good 90% of the film moves along perfectly. Machatý seems an expert at using motifs. Perhaps not as subtle as it could be, and perhaps a bit overused, but the appearances of objects like insects, lights, and horses carry the story forward beautifully. The small snatches of dialogue are, thankfully, unintrusive. They don't jar as much as one would imagine. The final bit is odd, to say the least. Reminiscent of Russian silents, we have a montage of workers. This barely makes sense in the course of the narrative, but it's so gorgeously done that I refuse to harp too much on that flaw. Ecstasy is a film that is desperately in need of rediscovery. It belongs amongst the best films ever made.


Here is one movie that is genuinely funny at every single moment that it covers. How can it not be given that this movie stars the creators of South Park and is directed by David Zucker? When I first saw this movie, I did'nt immediately realise that Coop and Doug were really Matt and Trey but their talent in acting and writing came out as quite impressive. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that they were really Matt and Trey, later on. The humor is sometimes crude, sometimes foul, sometimes brilliant, sometimes subtle, sometimes loud and sometimes stupid but overall, this is one hell of a movie that is without doubt, under rated. Well actually, its insane. Totally insane.


If you don't have anything better to do, then go ahead and rent this movie, it's intelligent, funny it will sure have your attention busy for a while.

I discover it by surfing channels in a boring Sunday, it was on cable, and for the faces I saw, I thought it may worth the try, it made me laugh and for a movie in a Sunday with nothing else on TV, it was OK.

Liv Tyler looks amazing in the movie, even though her acting is not what I expected, it's kind of poor acting and for the rest of the crew, I liked Reba in her role as a Dr. also I found interesting seeing the guy from the sitcom 'What I like about you' playing an almost gay lawyer.

As for J. Goodman I found it, as always a very good performance, Michael Douglas plays a small role but His characterization was hard for me to identify him..

It's also a good movie to watch with company.


you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.


I watched this short moments ago on the Sundance Film Festival website, and I must say it is absolutely astounding. I expected it to be entertaining - like all of the Sundance shorts - but I wasn't prepared for such deep sadness and yet also a sense of passion and beauty.

If you haven't yet seen any of this years entries to the festival, I suggest you go onto the site and watch these mini-masterpieces - I have seen them all, and can honestly say 'The Youth In Us' is the one that has touched my heart the most. I'm not the weakest audience member when it comes to romance in films, but my eyes flooded up so much I'm surprised I could still see the screen.

I agree with 'addicted2you', it truly is a masterful piece of directorial work, and the cinematography will just take your breath away.

I can't think of a better way to spend a spare 12 minutes.


This unassuming, fairly routine series deserves credit in the TV history books for two reasons: it was the first to win an Emmy award for best syndicated series, and it was the very first show to come from the fabled studios of Republic Pictures, known for its low-budget but high-powered shoot-em-ups in the 30's and 40's.

Republic was one of the first Hollywood studios to make a leap into the small screen, which was still in its infancy. But the studios' tenure as producer of TV pulp fiction would be brief. After this show, they would later dabble with the other format that they were known for, the adventure serial, with 'Commando Cody', as well as other series, but like this one, they didn't last longer than 39 episodes. Also, Republic was in its last stages as a studio; it would finish out its tenure in Hollywood as rental stages for several Revue Studio series such as 'Soldiers of Fortune', the original 'Dragnet', and 'Kit Carson', before finally shutting its doors in 1959.

Anyway, 'Stories of the Century' wasn't that bad of an oater, its calling card was tales based on authentic figures in Western history, mainly outlaws like Black Bart, Johnny Ringo, John Wesley Hardin, The Dalton Bros. and the like. The late Jim Davis, best known for his role as the Ewing patriarch in 'Dallas', put in an amiable job in the lead role as Matt Clark, a fictional railroad detective who has to contend with said outlaws, played by veteran and soon-to-be veteran character actors.

Two amazing facts here: The incidents would take place in different time lines, some in the 1880's, some at the turn of the century, but Clark never ages. And also, Matt has the good luck to saddle himself with two lovely female detectives as sidekicks, Frankie Adams, played by Mary Castle, and her replacement, Margaret 'Jonesy' Jones, by Kristine Miller. The Lone Ranger could only wish for lady companionship. You can only spend such time with Tonto for so long.

'Stories Of The Century' is a Studio City TV production from Republic Pictures Corp. 39 episodes were made during 1954, all 39 of which are in public domain and on DVD.


JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box

To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants

The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous

One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?

The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story

Even there are several cringeworthy scenes

Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced

Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent


This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.


This movie was much better than I expected. After a couple of films by Will Smith that weren't that great like I, Robot, he is back to being likable and fun in this one. Smith plays, Hitch, a date doctor. Most of the film centers around him teaching Albert how to be himself and get a date with Allegra Cole, a rich famous celebrity whom he works with. Albert is a klutz and goof and always tripping on his feet or what-not. All Hitch does is teach him how to act more cool and not be so nervous around Allegra.

During all this, Hitch meets Sara, a gossip columnist whom has sworn off men. Hitch charms her, so of course, they go out. But, Hitch may teach other guys how to get the girl to fall for them, he doesn't believe in love himself. He has never really had a girl since he was dumped in college. But, he likes Sara, so keeps going after her. Sara's friend is hurt by guy whom she thinks went to the date doctor. So Sara tracks the doctor down, only to learn its Hitch. So of course, she thinks he's a pig. Then it's up to hitch to explain to Sara and Allegra what he does, so they both end up forgiving.

FINAL VERDICT: Good, has some laughs, and is entertaining. I recommend it.


The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the 'super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside' plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director/writer) didn't.

God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the 'suck' meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of 'Alone in the Dark'.


This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing 'certain' characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.

That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.


It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.

One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.

When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain.


In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.

One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.

In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.

The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives.


They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like 'A Stop at Willoughby' or 'Midnight Sun', and you realize there is no comparison.

Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation.


Quite the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.

To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.

Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.


I can't remember when was the last time I have been so terribly disappointed by any movie. Probably I expected too much happening (in a way you can expect action in dogma style movies of course). But there is just nothing going on in here. Luckily I was watching it at home and could switch channels whenever the silence and dumb/numb faces started to kill me. And that was very often! It really isn't too much of a pleasure watching ugly people who don't talk and move slowly, stroke pigs and french kiss men, not to mention ugly bodies having explicit sex. If only it made any sense... the whole murder situation is ridiculous; seems like it was only created to show one more vagina since zero characters are capable of actually solving the crime. Having only four pseudo developed characters and a movie going nowhere it is pretty soon obvious whom the director picked as a killer. And that makes no sence either. Despite all the boredom and suffering I must admit that it somehow touched me in an unexplainable way. Maybe you should check it out yourself though I don't recommend it.


This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.

Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.

This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.

In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year.


I was at the world premier of this movie, and have even met Todd a couples times around town (once at Olive Garden). Todd isn't a bad guy, he is just a small time film maker with little to no budget and big dreams.

As for the movie, it is good if you like zombie films with very little plot and lots of blood and guts. You get to see some Kansas City locations and lots of raw meat, what could be better? :-) Look for the same 2 dozen people playing different zombies (with just a change of clothes or hats). You can have a good drinking game with this movie, take a shot whenever you see the same zombie in a different shirt.


The idea behind this film was a good one. Too bad it wasn't written well. Casting Sidney Poitier as the FBI agent was a good idea, and he did an outstanding job. Tom Berenger, on the other hand, only knows one emotion in most of his movies, anger. Kirstie Alley's character could have been a great one, and even showed some possibilities once, but the writer really let us down by making her role mostly a helpless female. This was completely inconsistent with the strongly independent character she was supposed to be. I don't care for Alley's acting anyway. The movie should have ended about fifteen minutes sooner than it did. The director milked the cow dry before the unbelievable final action. I will keep this in my collection only as an example of Poitier's performances.


Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the 'U.S. wars are cool' genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.


This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS.

don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!?

If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good.


Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get 'Aztec Rex.' Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie 'Warbirds.' Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.


Just saw this movie on TV and I have to admit, I was a bit surprised it was even on. There were so many goofs, mess-ups, and bad editing that an old episode of Sesame Street would have been better to watch. The acting was OK, but please, you can really feel the 'Straight to Video' feeling. The cast/crew made this movie a bad melodrama. Yes, there is a message in the movie, but just wait until ten minutes before the ending to hear it. Trust me, you wouldn't even tell the difference.


Here is the example of a film that was not well received when it was made, but whose standing seems to be raising in time. 'The Tenant' is quite an interesting work by Polanski, one of the first of his European exile. It is set in Paris, and as in so many other exile films the city, its streets, the Seine and especially the building where the action takes place play an important role. It is just that Polanski chooses his principal character not to be an American (as in 'Frantic' for example) but a Pole, as himself was when going West. There is actually a lot of personal commentary in this film, made at what must have been a time of crisis in the director's life, and the fact that he decided to play the lead role (and does it masterfully) may also be seen as some kind of exorcism.

It's in a way a circular story. The hero named Trelkovsky rents an apartment in old Parisian building, inhabited by what seem to be first a well assorted team of grumpy old or just ridiculous neighbors. The previous tenant tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the window of the flat, and Trelkovsky has just the time to visit her in the hospital before she dies and meet there her young and beautiful friend Stella (a spectacled Isabelle Adjani in her first role after Truffaut's 'L'histoire d'Adele H.'). Soon the neighbors do not seem to be what they are, it's a conspiracy to make him crazy, or to make him enter the life and role of the dead girl. He fights, tries to run, enters the game and ends by entering the circle and slowly becoming her. The circle is closed.

It's not the most believable story we may have seen or heard, but the strength of the film does not reside in the story but in the details of the psychology, in the slow degradation of the mental state of the hero, in the permanent balancing game between reality and delusion. To a certain extent it is not what happens on the screen that matters, but how it happens, reminding the classical 'Knife in the Water' made more than a decade before, at the end of the Polish period of Polanski. There are many details that are never explained, but then this is how mystery films must be and this is actually how life is sometimes. The feeling of claustrophobia slowly contaminates the viewer. Unfortunately some of the graphical details in the last part of the film are not too well executed and the English spoken dialogs (the film was made in English) almost neutralize the overall atmosphere. However, waiting for the final punch scene is very worth the patience.

It's not the best film that Polanski made, yet has many good parts, it shows the hand and the style of the director, and was a significant step in the building of his career.


When I saw this movie at age 6, it was in the CHILDRENS' section at Erols Video because it was animation. We watched it and it was a whole different ball game! A very violent story and graphic deaths are VERY entertaining and compelling, but not for children. Avoid for family viewing, my mom nearly had a heart attack and ripped the video apart!