James L. Brook is one of those directors who always seems to take a quirky look at life. He isn't only the producer for 'The Simpsons,' he has some classic comedies under his belt -- 'Broadcast News' is one of them.

Although it doesn't match his later effort 'As Good As It Gets,' 'Broadcast News' is still a very clever, funny and witty movie about a television broadcasting station and all the problems they suffer. There's a great comedic sequence of physical humor where Joan Cusack is running around the building trying to rush a news tape to the editing room in a matter of mere minutes before it is to be broadcast live on TV.

This isn't only very truthful in terms of how hectic broadcasting stations are operated, but also a skillful and honest portrayal of human beings.

A low-key, subtle movie with good acting (especially from Hurt, who I don't always like so much) and apt direction.


If you take the movie for what it is worth, you won't be disappointed. If you think Murray is supposed to win an Oscar for his performance and that is the type of movie you are expecting, don't bother. It was funny when I saw it in 1979 and hasn't lost its charm. Good clean fun for the kids and mindless entertainment for the older folks. The story line is simple and easy to follow. Murray has done better, but this is his first film. The movie reminds me of a time when we didn't need blood and guts to be entertained. Morty is the head dunce and plays the part perfect. The other counselors are typical revved up teens looking to have fun during the summer. One nice thing about this movie, it has a message.


As I reach the 'backside' of 35 I find myself shaking my head more and more at the sex crazed, drug influenced teens of today. It was great to be reminded that it was just as crazy for me back in my day as it is for teens today. This film drives that point home to the core. If you are a late 70's fan you'll love the film. From KISS-posters to an Angel concert this movie rocks !

Watch for a young Laura Dern. Why they didn't have more songs from the Runaways I'll never know ?

I did have a problem with Randy Quaid's character deflowering a 16 year old girl. While he was away she and her friends have a party that destroys dude's house. The cops come and everything but no mention of all the underage drinking and how these kids got their hands on this stuff.

Foxes belongs right there with Over the Edge, Fast Times, Dazed & Confused, and Kids as one of the all time teen angst flicks.

I say buy it and watch it with your kids and talk about it all.


My friend gives me these 3 huge boxes. 'They're laserdiscs of Flash Gordon serials,' he says. 'I'm gonna have some giant coasters,' I say. But not so. This serial rocks. (But I had to whine & moan to almost everyone I knew to find a laserdisc player for em).

There is really a little of everything in this serial: There are lion-men, hawk-men, shark-men, Earthmen, & I guess you'd call em Mongo-men. The sets & costumes combine, Greek, Roman, Oriental, Egyptian and there's even armour like English knights. Awesome costumes. And some of it was a riot. Those horrible tights with shorts over em worn by Zarkov are beyond description. And the guys in the furnace scene seem to be wearing boxers.

It's also funny the way they renamed the octopus to an octosack, the orangutan to orangapoid, and the tiger to a tigron. There's even a dragon (a Godzilla-like creature who threatens Flash on a couple of occasions before being killed off).

You like the Invisible Man? This has got you covered. You like sword fights, wrestling (both animals & men), fist fights? Plenty for any taste. We have an underwater city, a sky city, a city on top of a mountain, and tonnes of secret passages and caves.

Hokey effects? Massive amounts. The sky city is supported by radium furnaces stoked like old-time steamships. The rocketships are 'powered' by fireworks and have constant backfires and/or humming noises. Lots of wires are visible holding things up (like food when Flash was invisible and of course rocketships). There's clouds out in space, but none around the earth when viewed from Mongo. 'Giant' lizards show up briefly. Fighting sea creatures supposedly threaten Flash & co. on the way to the shark-men's underwater city. The 'gadgets' in Dr. Zarkov's lab crack me up. And they seem to be the same ones no matter what lab he's in (he worked in Ming's lab and Vultan's).

And yeah, we have romance. Everyone wants Dale; Ming, Vultan, Flash. But at least one person wanted Princess Aura (Prince Baron) just not the person she would have preferred. In fact, it seems a lot of the sub-plots concern intrigue on the part of Princess Aura to try to win Flash.

Man I think the characters are awesome. That fat, horse-laughing, King Vultan was hilarious. How he managed those wings was pure artistry. And Ming! What can I say about Ming? He was perfect. They should have had him for the emperor in Starwars. Ming has got to be my favourite character in this serial. Princess Aura was quite a little character too. And she pulled it off nicely. I think she's a better actress than Dale Arden by a long shot. Even the sneaky high priest had a distinctive role. Zarkov was good, but not the strongest character---and he always stood in the background during fight scenes holding Dale. Now we get to Flash: Flash, of course, was the strong point, the leader, the hero---and he did it well. Crabbe is a good actor and this role fit him perfectly.

After watching this, I think I know where George Lucas got the main idea for Starwars. Watch this, you'll see what I mean.

If you ever considered watching an old serial (or any serial for that matter), this should be your first choice. The only reason I didn't give this one a 10 is because of a few story holes that could have been fixed easily, the way the giant lizards seemed just tacked in there, and a couple of weak characters (king of shark-men & king of lion-men).


I thought Godzilla 2000 was the worst movie ever until I saw this monstrosity. My friends and I went to our local blockbuster and spent about an hour and a half looking for a movie. We could not find one since we have seen almost every movie created. We decided to look in the low budget horror section. We looked for the most attractive cover featuring scantily clad women. We finally decided on Last Slumber Party, THE. Whoops, we made a mistake. It seems as though this movie was filmed with the cheapest camera that could be found in K-Mart. The actors were picked up at a Salvation Army, and as for Steven Tyler. We will just leave that to the imagination. The plot of this movie was ridiculous. SPOILER ALERT While watching the movie there is absolutely no closure at all. Then come to find out all the events were just a dream. This movie should also have been about 30 minutes. If all the camera zooms on still shots, and scans of walls were taken out, it would have been much shorter. All I can say is I'm glad there wasnt a sequel.


'Distant' is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces - and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement. 'Distant' is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-)


Sometimes good things happen by accident.

I'd never heard of 'Silverwing' until late 2005--I was flipping channels and happened to see something on Toon Disney with bats in a sawmill being attacked by owls. I had no idea what it was, but I was motivated to stay tuned--it was hard waiting for a commercial so I could find out what it was called!

Part of what intrigued me was the looks of the bats--first of all, they didn't use the popular convention of giving the bats 'extra fingers' where their thumb claws are supposed to be. Rather, they have palms like human hands, but the fingers are longer and have webs of skin between them.

Also the faces--they look like human beings (in fact, at one point I wondered if they had once been human but were transformed INTO bats). Ordinarily I don't like this in cartoon animals, but it worked here--the story is a human story, even though it's about bats and other animals (not unlike The Lion King).

What I saw on TV were the last two parts of the 'trilogy.' I'd missed the very beginning of the first one, 'Towers of Fire' (the second overall), but for the most part I saw all of each of them. However, I found myself wanting to understand what was going on, since the first part hadn't been on and I wouldn't have caught it anyway.

But I saw that it was based on a book by Kenneth Oppel. How fortunate that I paid attention and wrote it down--I was very disappointed when I learned that the series WASN'T AVAILABLE! It wasn't even that recently made that it made sense for it not to be available yet.

However, I did find not only the book Silverwing, but also the two sequels Sunwing and Firewing. When I read the first book, I was left wondering 'Is that it?' Not only because a lot of what's in the series isn't in that book, but even had I not seen the animated version, the book Silverwing (otherwise a good story) doesn't end so much as it stops. Only one loose end is tied up--Shade and Marina meet the Silverwing colony at Hibernaculum.

In fact, Silverwing and Sunwing should have (in my opinion) been published in a single volume, because they make for a complete story together, but not separately.

Actually, the animated version takes some elements from Sunwing (e. g., Orestes, the lifting of the ban from seeing the sun) and some were completely original. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very enjoyable. I enjoy both versions of the Silverwing saga.

Which is why I'm glad it's finally going to be available in June. It was a long time coming, and it's well worth the wait.


I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.


Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.


Robot Holocaust is about the lamest, most pathetic attempt at making a post-apocalyptic movie that I've seen. And I thought the Italians were the masters of wretched Mad Max wannabes. Some of those movies like Escape 2000 are positively brilliant in comparison with this piece of poo. The plot is nonsensical  even with a narrator setting up every scene. And boy does it drag. Scene after scene with nothing of any interest happening. The special effects (and I use the word 'special' loosely) consist of sock puppets. Yes, that's right  sock puppets! The acting is abysmal. Angelika Jager is in the running for worst performance I've ever seen. Sure, she's French or German or whatever  but man is she bad. I cannot think of a single positive thing to say about the movie. So I'll stop there because ten sentences on this junk is about ten too many.

However, and fortunately for me, I saw the MST3K version of Robot Holocaust. Some of the things that made the movie so bad helped make this MST3K episode a winner. For a season one episode, the riffs come fast and furious and hit their mark just about every time. On my MST3K rating scale, I give this episode a 4/5  seek it out.


What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the 'actor', but now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really, really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast (one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course the two 'D's' (direction and the DOG). All in all a '10'.

/


This movie just was not very funny. There's not much else to say, other than that it was kind of embarrassing for Laurence Fishburne and David Hyde Pierce, both of whom deserve much better than this. Also, I don't understand why, after this movie completely and utterly bombed, WB insisted on making it into a TV show.


Edward Dmytryk's 'Crossfire' is a rare film coming from the Hollywood of the 1940s. This was groundbreaking territory for Mr. Dmytryk and the studio because of what the director and his adapter, John Paxton, decided to do with the novel, in which the film is based.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading now.

Richard Brooks novel was about the killing of a gay soldier. In the movie, the subject matter was turned around to prejudice against Jews, a theme that was taboo during that time in the American cinema. It's to Mr. Dmytryk's credit to have had the courage to get involved with this film project, at all.

The movie is an outstanding piece of film making because the way the director presents it. Obviously influenced by the film noir style, we are taken to the Washington of the post war. The opening scene about the brutal murder of Samuels shows such unusual cruelty being inflicted to a decent man, who we don't know yet, or why has been killed, but who didn't deserve to die in such horrible fashion.

The basis of the murder is prejudice, pure and simple. We realize how in the mind of an ignorant man, the mere fact of being successful and different, plays in the mind of the assassin. Samuels stands as the sacrificial lamb, the same way the gay soldier is the victim in the novel. The parallels are well drawn.

This film makes compelling viewing because of the brilliant star turn of Robert Ryan, as Montgomery. Mr. Ryan was an actor that always played interesting roles, but never so well as in 'Crossfire'. Also, there is a great appearance by Gloria Grahame, as Ginny, the prostitute with her heart in the right place.

The rest of the cast play as an ensemble. Robert Young, as the police detective in charge of the investigation plays is a decent man who has known prejudice first hand in his own family and speaks loudly against it. Robert Mitchum plays a cool Sgt. Keeley who is deeply touched by the crime when one of his men is accused of committing it. Sam Levene is excellent in his small role of Samuels.

This is a film to watch because of it probably the first to speak out loud against ignorance.


....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's 'LA Story', which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.

Yes, naive boys and girls, '20 Dates' IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.

As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the 'dates' suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as 'the dates' are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.

Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)

You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. '20 Dates' is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.

It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before '20 Dates' and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by 'Elie' (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!


This was a very nice soft-core movie for both men and women. Plenty of nudity/sex, but without the overall raunch you'll usually find. They could not have done a better job in casting as the entire ensemble was stunning. Trust me guys, if you want to get your woman in the mood, get something with Bobby Johnston in it! And I'm sure lovely Monique Parent, Samantha McConnell and the rest of the ladies would do it for any heterosexual male. Unfortunately, Bobby and Monique do not share a scene together and if you are aware of a movie where they do, please PM me! I'd love to know. The photography was much better than usual. So was the story. Predictable, but nice, sweet natured and romantic. At the very least it was not one of those annoying predictable murder mysteries full of bottle blonde women with huge fake breasts. I give this 7/10!


shakespeare's plays have a way of transcending time. The language somehow breaks the time barrier. but perhaps it is the actors who really do that.

after the disappointment in Romeo and Juliet (the version with Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio), was hesitant take on another modern rendition of Shakespeare. To my surprise Othello was great!

Iago's character was played so well by the Kenneth fellow! even thoough Iago is really evil and despicable, the character was played so well that it does what shakespeare intended for the charater to be, a pleasure for the audience to hate. i have to say that fishburne's performance here was really good as well.

i recommend this for shakespeare scholars and lazy students (who refuse to read the book) alike.


This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, 'yes' or 'no' portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...

Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.


This film is just a kids against evil genre. Thunderbirds is just the hook to get people to see it, but are almost incidental in use. The fact that the action takes place on Tracy Island is just a ploy to pull in the public. It was interesting to note what the film makers view of future London will be and how the World all fits together.

The best part of this film are some of the lines delivered by Lady Penelope which are highly comical. These provided some light relief for those expecting a rerun of the TV series.

Having said that it passes 90 or so minutes in a 'fun' way and so may just be worth watching.


Really!Here the French cinema hits rock bottom ,and compared to it, the least appealing of the American adolescent horror movies,the likes of 'Friday the thirteenth' 'Freddy' and co are masterpieces of the seventh art.

It's all the more infuriating as there were exciting original elements :the forêt de Brocéliande and its legends ,the druids and King Arthur ,all were splendid assets for a dreamlike fantasy and horror film.Alas! Filmed ,as an user aptly pointed out in a fake forest,near Paris ,the movie is fake horror,fake Celtic history,fake vestiges -you should see the professor (Wilms who was a wonderful M.Le Quesnoy in 'la vie est un long fleuve tranquille) scream for the 'invaluable scrap' -which the production probably bought in a dime store-fake characters ,fake excavations...

The boys disguised as druids are unintentionally very funny ;so are the girls who seem to be experts in martial arts.And what can we say of the professors? of the monster? A ten year old would write a better screenplay than this grotesque farce.To think that people can spend money for such drivel when artists are still waiting for a producer!

Word to the wise:Maurice Leblanc wrote a marvelous story dealing with druids and old ceremonies in his Arsene Lupin saga called 'l'île aux trente cercueils' .A miniseries was made 30 years ago.Avoid this 'Broceliande' garbage and try to see it instead.


Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in 'Of Human Bondage,' she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in 'Dangerous.' I imagine Davis' fans of 'Of Human Bondage' who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film 'Dangerous,' performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.

I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, 'Of Human Bondage,' gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in 'Of Human Bondage.' That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in 'The Man Who Played God,' & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.

I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for 'Dangerous,' 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from 'Of Human Bondage,' onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6.

'Dangerous' provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in 'Dangerous' (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in 'Of Human Bondage,' Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.

Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.

It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.

Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.

Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in 'Of Human Bondage,' Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead.


First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.

In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the 'Uncle's' as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the 'Dragon Head Baton', a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.

Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.

While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.

Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.

My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more.

Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be.


1st watched 1/1/2003 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Henri Verneuil): Sober drama about a well-to-do Doctor who gets into trouble carrying on a relationship with a younger woman, whom his family brings in to live with them, as well as being married to another in the same household. His searching for happiness is not clear, but they do bring out the reason for his unhappiness rather well by displaying the overbearing trait of the females in his wife's line. Well played, but predictable drama.


This was a very faithful presentation of Lewis's life in the mid-50's. The dialogue on theology and the banter with his follow colleagues was exceptionally good. Michael White's book, 'C.S. Lewis: Creator of Narnia' deals with this time frame in a very parallel way. Joss Ackland's acting was superb in catching the unemotional Lewis. The movie took great pains to be presented in an accurate English setting. The development of a strong bond between 'Jack' (his preferred name) Lewis and Douglas Gresham, Joy's son from her previous marriage, was enjoyable to watch. The movie did avoid the distasteful element of 'Warnie' Lewis's (Jack's older brother) drinking problem, but it would not have moved the story on, so it is best left out.


The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.

First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.

The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.

Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, 'Elle' is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.

Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... 'Are you okay?' asks the driver 'yes, I'm fine' she says, bloodied and disheveled.

I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.


Glenn Close is back as Sarah Plain and Tall, a woman who keeps a family together through the good and bad times. The acting is superb -- Christopher Walken (unusually non-spooky) as her husband once again delivers a top-notch performance. It's good to see young Christopher Bell all grown up; too bad we don't get to see much of Anna (Lexi Randall, also a few years older), but the new addition to the Witting family (played by Emily Osment) was very welcome. And finally, Jack Palance, as the long lost Witting patriarch, is as fine as ever.


My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party.


I love occult Horror, and the great British Hammer Studios, who delivered one of their greatest films with 'The Devil Rides Out' (1968), have proved to be more than capable in this field of Horror. This occult tenth episode of Hammer's short running TV-series 'Hammer House of Horror' (1980), 'Guardian of the Abyss', is indeed a creepy entry to the series. Director Don Sharp, who had previously enriched the Hammer oeuvre with 'The Kiss of the Vampire' (1963) and 'Rasputin: The Mad Monk' (1966) and furthermore directed two 'Fu Machu' movies starring Christopher Lee, is doubtlessly one of the better-known names among the HHH directors, and he also delivers here. Antiques dealer Michael (Ray Lonnen) stumbles over a mysterious old scrying glass. The scrying glass happens to be the object of desire of a devil-worshiping cult, who want to use it for their satanic rites. When he shelters a beautiful young girl named Allison (Rosalyn Landor), who is to be sacrificed by the cult, Michael gets into deeper trouble with the cult and their sinister leader (John Carson)... While this is not one of my absolute favorite episodes of 'Hammer House of Horror' (the best one clearly is the brilliant seventh episode, 'The Silent Scream'), it is a very creepy and atmospheric one. The plot has several interesting twists, and stays suspenseful and uncanny throughout the film. Ray Lonnen makes a good lead, young Rosalyin Landor is convincing as the innocent beauty, and John Carson is truly creepy as the leader of the Satanists. Overall, 'Guardian of the Abyss' is another interesting and creepy HHH tale, and my fellow Hammer fans should not miss it.


'Tourist Trap' is among my favorite late 70's/early 80's horror flicks. A group of young people are heading somewhere, one pair in the car ahead, & that car has a flat, and our film opens with the young man, Woody, pushing the tire along looking for a service station. He finds a seemingly abandoned place, and yet hears voices and investigates, and ends up with a piece of pipe through his stomach for his efforts. Along comes the rest of the young folks (in a VW Thing) and they pick up Woody's girlfriend, and find this very same place, Slausen's Oasis, or some such thing..and then Mr. Slausen happens along while the girls are enjoying a dip in the stream. Of course, the VW Thing has mysteriously died at that point, so odd Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors) offers his help. Mr. Slausen has a museum, with lots of wax figures, and he lives in the museum but behind is a big house, where he says Davey lives. And who is Davey? Why, Davey Crockett, he says...but if it were Davey Crockett, they'd all probably be safer. The girls are left alone while Slausen goes to help with fixing the car, but of course curiosity gets the better of one & she goes to investigate, and finds the house full of creepy mannequins and one rather animated one named...Davey. What follows is a rather creepy night of terror as one by one, they're taken prisoner by Davey, who says he's Slausen's brother. One girl (kidnapped earlier) is treated to a plaster facial, which results in her death when it covers up her air supply. At any rate there's somewhat of a twist to this and kind (but weird) Mr. Slausen is not exactly what he appears to be. A good, creepy late 70's horror flick, and lots of mannequins make for a very creepy atmosphere. 7 out of 10.


I've been watching a lot of cartoon or animated movies because I have a baby girl who likes to watch TV. I began to watch this movie to see if I would like my little one to watch it... and no. At the beginning I thought it was such a cute movie like the Bambi movie, but all the way it was like insinuating the ducky was a homosexual. The info said that they were making fun of him because he wasn't good at sports, but that was not the case. It just seems like a movie made for kids to learn to be okay being gay. It was also very sad, as far as the ducky's dad and all. I don't know, I guess if you're gay you'd like it, but I don't think I'm going to watch it again with my little one.


Young, ambitious nurse Ms. Charlotee (Rosie Holotik) is sent to work at a mental asylum out in the middle of nowhere. During the course of 3 days, she encounters strange happenings, even a patient in her bedroom watching her, yet she still stays. The mental patients are all a little eye rolling (espically by the Judge), but my favorite was the old crazy biddy (Rhea MacAdams). The storyline is okay at best, and the acting is surprisingly alright, but after awhile it's gets to be a little much. But, still it's fun, quirky, strange, and original.

Note: The thing inside the basement is hardly horrifying, so the title is a little bananas.


My left foot is an epic outstanding film explaining the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the odds

I have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally brilliant each time.I wonder how did this amazing film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the greatest directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is excellent in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel your in the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are amazing as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is equally brilliant as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.

The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.My left foot was the start of a wonderful period in Irish film. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a powerful outstanding film.

Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the best ever film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.

this is an excellent masterpiece in film,see it!


Got back from Morocco then, where my dad was attached to the German embassy, when the film came out in Europe; took all my girlfriends to see it, show them the beauty of the country, where Jimi had played - and stayed -; where the hippies stopped after leaving Ibiza and before joining Goa. Sean Combs just celebrated at a friends restaurant in Marrakech recently, the Djema el Fna was much wilder in those days than it is now; the Stones went there earlier, Brian recorded in Tangiers ; so it's memories and family entertainment and I'm glad my son will get to know about the north of Africa watching this movie. Candice Bergen looks beautiful and oo7/Connery is pretty funny indeed; and Teddy Roosevelt as played by Brian Keith quite impressive.


I have not read the book that this was based upon/inspired by. This being some of(the others are film roles) the last work of John Ritter(RIP), one hopes that it is hilarious. And it is. Almost every time he's present in this, as a matter of fact. Most of the cast, supporting as well as regular, play off each other well, and the material tends to be great. He plays Paul Hennessy, the father of three teenagers: Rory, the typical guy of that age, Kerry, the depressive middle-child who fights for causes and awareness, and Bridget, the fashion-loving, popular ditz. Sagal makes a return to being the female lead in a sit-com, and her character is far removed from Peggy Bundy. The show changed somewhat after Mr. Three's Company passed on, and for a while, they couldn't seem to make up their minds if they wanted to go for getting laughs, or being poignant and making sure to be respectful. One can wonder how or why it lasted for so long after that: It could still be quite good, some of the additions were fortunate(if you like David Spade, most of his part consists of him doing his schtick) and had stuff to say. My personal favorite episode is in the last season. The humor is a nice mix of 'dumb person' jokes(mainly related to the high-schoolers), silliness, dark comedy and crude material. This dealt with sex and other adult topics, but never in a graphic manner. The language is mild, and, on occasion, moderately strong. I recommend this to any fan of those who made it. 8/10


I watched this movie on HBO and I had a good time.

The director has done a great work. I found myself totally absorbed into this movie once it started. Norman Reedus's performance is cool. I expect more chilling movies from him.

I was so absorbed that on occasions I wanted to grab gun from Norman and shoot that snake girl. Hehe. I like the movies when innocent looking girls play tricks with men really cunningly. The ending was what I wanted :))

This movie is filled with twists of moments. You expect this but something else happens.

In the beginning, those massive images cut scenes were really painful to eyes.

Although it was not shown when Norman Reedus changed currency notes? Or is it me standing by fridge. :)


I can't say if 'The Cavern' is a ripoff of 'The Cave' because I haven't seen that. I've seen 'The Descent' and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10.


I managed to obtain an original BBC broadcast of this film on video and loved it so much I had to try and locate the original video in its original box; thanks go to Ebay.

Deleted on any format since 1990, this exceptional wildlife film is finely constructed and well acted. Directed by Stewart Raffil (MAC & Me), the scenes of leaping Tigers running through the Alaskan wilderness is nothing short of stunning and its timeless tale of a trapper trying to survive on his own in the frozen wastes with two young tiger cubs is moving on each viewing.

Why no major company has picked up this movie to distribute on DVD is a big wonder; but makes it that extra special to know its also hard to locate.

If you find this film by chance or eventually track it down to add to your collection, make sure never to let it vanish out of your grasp. Films of this calibre, as shown, don't come often.

A true masterpiece in every sense of the word, and highly worthy of its praised comments, 'WHEN THE NORTH WIND BLOWS' will sink deep into your heart as soon as you see it.


Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).

Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.

I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.

Just can't wait further for season 3.


Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song 'You Light Up My Life;' the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.

Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--'You Light Up My Life.' She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking 'Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen.' And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.

Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of b-movies. Back when Michelle Bauer, Linnea Quigley and Brinke Stevens ruled the roost. And back then, even the bad movies were still good. Unfortunately, this is a bad movie that is just plain bad. Even a small cameo by Brinke Stevens (reprising her role as Linda from 'Slumber Party Massacre' 21 years earlier) doesn't help this one out. A group of cheerleaders take refuge in a fancy cabin after their van breaks down. A psycho stalks them one by one, catching them in various states of undress. Bad script, bad direction and horrible acting make this one plain bad! Skip this turkey and go rent 'Slumber Party Massacre.' 1/2*


An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.

A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.

This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia.


I purchased this film on DVD for £4, but it was a waste, the film is very bad. The plot is your average monster film, where it kills a few people, the mayor/chief doesn't believe it, and they fight it at the end.

On the plus side, the film quality is very good, and the setting of New York is impressive for a budget film - as opposed to a small coastal town. The acting is reasonable too.

However, the special effects, mainstage in a monster film, are laughable and the addition of a random bus load of kids to the plot half way through just gets weird. The ending is just bad.

In summary, whenever you have a chance to see this, don't - there WILL be something better on.

R-T-C 'True horror films don't have a PG rating'


My one line summary should explain it all, but I'll have a go at it.

From the get-go, this movie seemed like an overdone soap opera, and that's about all I can comment on. There were a few interesting scenes, such as the 'Big one' that hit during the middle of the movie, but, wait, what's that? The earthquake *gasp*, wait a minute! That's Dante's Peak! Well, parts of it butchered and slapped in. I can't believe how poorly this movie was done, 'borrowing' scenes from other, much better films. One wonders what director thought that viewers are dumb enough to believe large wooded mountain-esque backdrops exist in downtown LA, ala Dante's Peak.

My advise, forget the Bond Wanna-be, Nash, in this film and go for the real thing (again, someone from Dante's Peak coincidentally.)


this movie is similar to Darkness Falls,and The Boogeyman(2005)but it's also much more graphic than both,and not as good as either.it's also slow and fairly predictable.it's also got shades of Deliverance and the Amityville Horror.plus,we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational/inspirational sermon.really,this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything.even though it is gory,the makeup effects are not very realistic looking.in fact they look kinda cheap.aside from all that,there is some really awful clichéd dialogue.and i won't say when,but there is a point where a couple of the character's actions were not authentic or believable,given the circumstances.nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way.once you watch the movie,you'll know what i mean.there's also some gratuitous nudity for nudity's sake.it just wasn't necessary at all.the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good.better than this movie deserves.so,after carefully weighing the evidence,id say this movie was passable,but not good.my verdict for The Tooth fairy:4/10


Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance. His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing. I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Very disappointing.


The CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for

various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain.


Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.


The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying 'well he takes French commands' and start talking Spanish.

James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.

To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.

If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.


This slightly ponderous late 50's sci-fi-horror schlock isn't entirely a loser. It's about a manned space rocket that crash lands in a remote area. A bunch of scientists go to investigate and discover that the astronaut is in some kind of coma; he's being kept alive by alien embryos that have been mysteriously implanted in him. Anyway, the title alien monster soon raises it's head causing general havoc, including partial head removal.

The main problem with the film is it's pacing. It takes quite a while for the Blood Beast to appear, and he really only comes into his own in the last 20 minutes or so. He is undoubtedly a completely ridiculous creation but that's really not a problem as he provides a fair amount of comic relief. At the end of the movie where we have the final stand-off and this ludicrous creature starts talking with the voice of the doctor he killed earlier, you will be doing well not to have a giggle. So too in the brilliant x-ray scene where we see the alien embryos floating about in the astronaut's body - it's just too funny for words.

But unfortunately, the fun moments in Night of the Blood Beast come too few and far between. If you're a 50's sci-fi nut though then it's well worth checking this one out. Just don't expect too much.


This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.


I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.

Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.

Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film 'The Iron Giant', to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in 'Star Wars: The Phantom Menace'.

On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.

Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.

The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.


As a child the first installment ('The Little Mermaid') was my favorite movie. It was filled with great characters, songs, and a fun family film. A week or so again I watched this movie for the first time. I believe that this movie was like most sequels and didn't surpass their original. I think that I feel this way possibly because I had high expectations and I have grown up. However, it is not a bad film.

It starts when Ariel has just given birth to a beautiful child, Melody. Eric and Ariel feel threatened by Morgana (Eurselas' sister), so they build a large wall around their house which lies on the sea. As Melody grows up she begins to wonder outside of the walls where she is forbidden to go. Trouble stirs up as Morgana tries to take control of the seven seas.

I don't want to give away any of the movie so you have to see it to find out. I did like that the voices are the same and again wonderful singing. I think this is a good family film though overall!


Diane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it off.


And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where 'Friends' is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the 'perfect guy' (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!


Considering the risk of showing same-sex relationships before the late 1980's, Personal Best could have done better to play the same-sex relationship between Hemingway (Chris Cahill) and Donnelly (Tory Skinner) as a more than experimental phase of Cahill's life.

It seems to me that the creators of this movie threw in the same-sex relationship between two fairly attractive women in order to attract viewers. Also consider the 90 seconds of exposing the crotches of several women jumping backwards over a high jump pole. This random scene had VERY LITTLE relevance to the movie and it appeared as though this was done merely to keep the audience interested in this bland movie. I suppose the producers were trying to counteract the boring plot and the even more boring setting of the movie (the 1980 Oregon Track and Field Competition).

This review may seem harsh, but it is the truth. The exploitation of young Muriel Hemingway's body and the same-sex relationship ruined any credit that I would have given to this film.

Pepper Thompson


If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.

I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.

Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.

Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.

The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.

There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.

This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.


Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot.


The concept of this made-for-TV horror movie is ludicrous beyond words, but hey, it was the late 1970's and literally all stupid horror formats were pretty damn profitable, so why not exploit the idea of a satanically possessed dog? The plot of 'Devil Dog' is easy to describe to fans of the horror genre: simply think of 'The Omen' and replace the newborn baby boy with a nest of German Shepard pups! Seriously, I'm not kidding, that's what the movie is about! During the opening sequence, members of some kind of satanic cult buy a female dog in heat only to have it impregnated by Satan himself. You'd think that the Lord of Darkness has other things on His mind than to fornicate with a German Shepard and take over the world one evil puppy at the time, but apparently not. Exactly like little Damien in 'The Omen', one of the puppies is taken in by model family and grows up to become a beautiful and charismatic animal. But Lucky  that's the dog's name  is pure evil and liquidates annoying neighbors and nosy school teachers in derivative and tamely executed ways. He also inflicts his malignant character on the family wife and children, but he cannot force the father (Richard Crenna) to stick his arm into a lawnmower because he's a 'chosen one'. The whole thing becomes too moronic for words when Crenna eventually travels to Ecuador to search for an ancient wall painting and gets advice from an old witchdoctor who speaks perfect English. I guess he learned that living in isolation atop of a mountain his entire life. Director Curtis Harrington ('What's the matter with Helen', 'Ruby') and lead actor Richard Crenna ('Wait until Dark', 'The Evil') desperately try to create a suspenseful and mysterious atmosphere, but all is in vain. Scenes like cute puppy eyes spontaneously setting fire to a Spanish maid or a dog dodging bullets without even moving evoke chuckles instead of frights, and not even spooky musical tunes can chance that. The 'special' effects are pathetic, especially near the end when the Satan-dog mutates into an utterly cheesy shadow on the wall. 'Devil Dog' is a truly dumb movie, but it's definitely hilarious to watch late at night with some friends and loads of liquor. There are entertaining brief cameos of Martine Beswick ('Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde') as the terrifying cult queen and R.G. Armstrong ('The Car', 'The Pack') as the evil fruit, vegetable and puppy salesman. And, yes, that annoying daughter is the same kid who gets blown away complaining about her ice-cream in Carpenter's 'Assault on Precinct 13'.


I love the movie, it was a very interesting fantasy movie b/c of the real meaning of family in it, the history of our country, the fun-filled action displayed in the movie. I watch time @ the top about 4 X's a week and I just love it! I wish that a sequel had of been made to see more of Susan's dad in the past and watching how Susan delt with her new baby sister and having no telephone, computers, gameboys or anything of the 21st century. I hope everyone else enjoyed the movie as much as I did I guess you could say I'm a time at the top fanatic and I don't mind. The lil boy in the movie Robert Lincoln Walker was simply adorible I wonder who he is and how old he is today. Does anyone know if he's played in over movies or TV shows?


I'm glad I read the Sarah Waters novel first, since I had my own pictures of the characters in my head at the time. The ones cast for this production, however, were not at all disappointing - in fact, after I got used to Rachael Stirling as Nan, I think Nina Gold did a damn fine job in the casting department. (Can Keeley Hawes be more delicious?!)

The BBC has done it again: this is a wonderful production of a very good book, and they have done it up in style. If you can get your hands on this (VHS, DVD) be sure to get the 181-minute version (the uncensored one.) It is a marvelous journey, albeit a bit rocky at times, that you won't regret taking.


PUT THE CAMERA ON ME is a deceptively cute film. It is actually a complex glimpse at the psychology of children and offers interesting insights into the development of adults and an artist. On the surface this is a nostalgic look at some home movies made in the 80's by a group of upper class neighborhood kids. One of the film's directors, Darren Stein, had access to a video camera and quickly took over as the artistic leader for all of the movies. Sure, these are just some cute kids having fun. But, this is also much more. This is a look into some moments in time as children grapple with a number of confusing issues that all of us face in life --- fear, sexual awakening, unrequited love, loneliness and just trying to make sense of the adult world which seems to explode all around us. As we get older we tend to forget how overwhlelming the realities of life were when we were little.

What makes this film all the more valid is to watch a young Darren Stein turn into a little general of a filmmaker. It is clear that Darren is running this show and these little movies are his vision but they are all informed by his friends, their problems, the interpersonal dynamics and the general confusion regarding the horrors of adult life. A lot of children make home movies, but I've never heard of or seen children create 'little' movies about the holocaust, homosexuality, nuclear war and the inability to fit in and make friends. These kids are confronting and dealing with some heavy stuff!

The power of this film is the way Stein and Shell pull various scenes together so tightly with running interviews with the kids --- all now adults and all still friends. This adds a new angle to the film. How many of us have stayed in touch with our childhood friends? These guys have. And, many of the issues with which they were dealing are still running between them two decades later.

Among the conflicts -- a confession of a crush reveals a heart still broken, a very normal childhood sexual experience continues to be a 'sticky' subject between two of the men, some ongoing resentments over the dynamics of relationships and there is still a member of this team who remains very much in charge and in center stage! Which makes perfect sense as one watches these home movies progress over the course of a couple of years. Darren Stein is a director. No doubt about it.

Stein and Shell take turns chatting with each other from time to time and one can't help but imagine the awkwardness of allowing us to peek into the young lives of these people. This is particularly true for Stein who has gone on to a great deal of success in the entertainment industry as a film producer, writer and director. From the first moment of PUT THE CAMERA ON ME we can see the emergence of a gay little boy trying to figure it all out. We also see sides of the artistic mind and personality that are not always 'nice' or 'caring' --- and, this is a bold move for any artist to share with an audience.

There are so many revealing moments, but the most disturbing and complex moments involve a movie in which we see a Jewish concentration camp victim being tortured and killed by a Nazi. We discover thru interviews and narration that the Nazi is played by a Jewish child and the part of the victim is played by a gentile child. It is a painfully disturbing moment that glimpses into the darker side of fear and the way children work thru the horrors of the adult world that are beyond adult understanding much less that of a child.

This is much more than some home movies. This documentary captures the pain, beauty, joy and sadness of growing up. Powerful stuff --- and well worth seeing!

:


On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called 'Stargate SG-1' was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film 'Stargate' starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two 'l's!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.

As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left 'SG-1' in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.

The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His 'Farscape' co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the 'SG-1' faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with 'Children of the Gods' ended with 'Unending'. The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.

In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, 'Star Trek', in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to 'Doctor Who' (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed 'The X-Files' only a few months before it ended.

'Stargate SG-1' represents the cornerstone of the 'Stargate' franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled 'Stargate Atlantis', which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, 'Stargate: The Ark of Truth' and 'Stargate Continuum', were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, 'Stargate Universe', is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, 'Stargate Infinity', which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of 'SG-1' and 'Atlantis' as continuing series, the future of 'Stargate' looks very bright indeed.

In conclusion, while 'Stargate' has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as 'Star Trek' and 'Doctor Who', its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come.


I only came here to check Terror Hospital for an alternate title so I'd know what not to pick up. Not only do I get the original title, but I come to find Terror Hospital is one of seven more aliases.This one is a real clunker. Movies like this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended consequences of the feature on every level of production that result in at least a mild form of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. Instead, the viewer is witness to redundantly unnecessary and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation exposition and drawn out scenes of characters warily moving from room to room, and all this is half of the film. Forget trying to figure out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't care, anyway. There is also a random car chase sequence that seems quite dull when compared to some of the old driver's ed movies I slep... er, I mean sat through and watched way back in high school. Really, we're talking about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the loose here - not a bad recipe for trash cinema. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to make it even 'good' trash; when joined to the aforementioned, the bad acting and not-so-special effects are just that - bad acting and not-so-special effects. This one's just trash, pure and simple. Leave it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that box at the yard sale. There's a reason its there...


Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.

Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.

Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.

I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall.


Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior has a very good, strong plot but is ruined by cheesy details throughout the movie. I am a younger teenager and didn't enjoy this movie very much. I thought the effects were horrible, but they might seem entertaining to younger children. The matrix moves ruined the action, you know that it was absolutely fake. Then there was the Yen Lo, an evil spirit who temporarily possesses random people and homecoming in which Wendy was striving to win. It all ends like a typical feel good movie when Wendy and her Buddhist monk cousin Shen defeat Yen Lo (and destroy him forever) in the end. So Wendy learns a lesson...blah, blah, blah. I'm ready for the next DCOM.


This show was incredible!!! I've seen all three and this is the best. This movie has suspense,a bit of romance,stunts that will blow your mind (GO BOBBIE), great characters and amazing locations. Where was this filmed? Will there be more? I really liked the story line with her brother. Looking forward to Chameleon 4 and to see how the world is saved yet again.


**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**

If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.

Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.


I watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called 'Benson, Arizona' that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.

The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.

It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better.


Yes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious.


I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.


(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter  what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why  despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump  water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her  he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds  that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker  they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met!  all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting  it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.


As someone who has never condescended Adam Sandler in terms of talent, as is done to him and many comic actors like him, I walked in to Reign Over Me expecting a great film, not simply because of his presence in the movie but because I thought that it looked very good overall. Even someone who already thought that Sandler could deliver an effective dramatic performance is writing here that I was surprised at how fantastic he is in it. He will make you weep, especially in his purposefully sudden and unexpected monologue. What's amazing about his role is that it's a character it's hard to say we've seen before. We've seen many emotionally scarred characters, many mentally retarded people, many loners, many passionate self-centered artists, but Sandler's Charlie Fineman is none of these. He may have a taste of each of them in some ways, but his character is truly unpredictable and completely individual. It's a joy for the audience to be drawn in emotionally by him and be tugged every which way by someone whose problems, mindset, and provocations are completely different from most characters like him.

Don Cheadle delivers an interesting performance on a completely different level. He is every man. He is the most normal possible person in the world, so much so that you will hardly find many characters like his either, or at least any that are played the way he plays Alan Johnson, whose name is even found on the assembly line. Cheadle is brilliant in that he is funny, jolting, smart, and stupid the way so many normal people are.

The rest of the cast is populated by actors and actresses who've hardly done anything in awhile in smaller but quite colorful roles. Jada Pinkett-Smith is the overly refined upper middle class wife, Donald Sutherland is the impatient but surprising judge, Robert Klein is Sandler's desensitized father-in-law.

Mike Binder's script is quite brilliant because it says something quite profound about the wonders of communication in all of its guises. It's much more subtle than, say, Babel, and has a much more close-to-home ideal.

The camera is only interested in the reality of its images as opposed to the mere style. This film struck me as sort of a sendback to the kitchen-sink style of the 1970s. Cinematography was grainy and unfastened, but that was its charm. It wasn't about attracting us to the camera itself and the gloss that would've diluted its stories with such.

The music, which plays a major role in the film, and its title, is very powerful. Near the beginning, you feel like you're in for another About Schmidt or Little Miss Sunshine sort of soundtrack, but you soon realize you're in for more than that. In fact, the film is packed with lots of music that stimulates a lot of the most emotional scenes.

Reign Over Me is a major statement not only for society but also for film itself. It goes to show that even the director of Blankman is capable of wonders.


Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot inspires the jealousy of her husband/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In short this is a must for French cinema buffs.


***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****

I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.

If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.


And the Oscar for the most under-rated classic horror actor goes to - Dwight Frye. Seriously his name should be stated with the same awe as Karloff, Lugosi, and Price, and this movie proves it. His character Herman was one of the 2 reasons I can give to watch this movie. Dwight gave this somewhat more than slightly disturbed misfit a lovable yet creepy demeanor that led you hoping for a larger role the entire movie.

The other reason is the comic relief of M. Eburne. Being in the medical profession myself I have to give kudos to the expert performance of a self-pity prone hypochondriac. Though other 'medical mistakes' did give a brief chuckle especially when the good doctor samples his fellow physicians medication... 'Well continue giving it to her' Unfortunately these 2 outstanding performances could not keep me awake through 3 attempts of sitting through this unbearably slow movie. The plot is predictable with only few minor twists. The filming while pulling off a legitimate spooky atmosphere was more productive at making me yawn - yes you can use too much shadow.

My recommendation - watch this once to see Frye and Eburne - but only when wide awake and with lots of caffeine.


I thought that this was an absolutely charming movie centering around the lives of Mary-Kate's and Ashley's characters Sam and Emma Stanton! They are both trying to make both themselves and their parents happy but; unfortunately, it's just not that easy for them to actually do! I thought that this was an utterly charming and sweet movie and if you are a real fan of these marvelous young ladies then I'm sure that you'll agree with me here! If you haven't seen this movie yet then I say you really missed-out; big time, and that you should definitely take the time out to see it now! This movie is a real winner! Sincerely, Rick Morris