I find it remarkable that so little was actually done with the story of the a-bomb and it's development for decades after the Manhattan Project was completed. My suspicion is that this was due to serious fears in the movie and entertainment industries (in the 1950s through the 1970s) with 'McCarthyism' and related national security phobias (including the Hollywood blacklist). There was one film in the 1950s (with Robert Taylor) about Col. Paul Tibbits who flew the Enola Gay in the Hiroshima bombing, but otherwise nothing else. One could glance at a side issue tragedy (the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis soon after the delivery of the bombs to Tinian) in Robert Shaw's description of the shark attacks on the survivors in JAWS. But the actual trials and tribulations of Groves, Oppenheimer, and their team was not considered film-able.

And then in 1989 two films appeared. I have reviewed one already (DAY ONE) which I feel is the better of the two in discussing the lengthy technical and emotional and political problems in the Manhattan Project. The acting of Brian Dennehy as General Groves and David Strahairn as Oppenheimer was first rate and neatly balanced. Small side vignettes concerning the anti-bomb crusade of Szilard (Michael Tucker) help fill out the story well.

That's the problem here. Paul Newman is a great actor (as is Mr. Dennehy) but Newman approached Groves in a different way that while not dreadful is lesser than Dennehy's intelligent but soft spoken military brass. Newman seems too popped eyed about the possibility of the weapon as the biggest stick to confront the other boys in the after-school yard with. Yes it certainly was, but the real Groves would have been more like Dennehy keeping his mind not on that great toy of the future but on the business of creating that great toy.

Dwight Schultz's performance as Oppeheimer helps maintain the film's basically interesting and good production, aided by Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. But the most interesting aspect of this film is in the upgrading of the two tragedies of Daghlian and Slotin, in particular the latter, in the character of John Cusack's Merriman. Inevitably in all technological advances people are killed. It's just that these two tragedies (on top of the tens of thousands that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) brought home the dangers of the new unleashed power even in a so-called peaceful, controlled experiment. The two tragedies (particularly Louis Slotin's slow, agonizing death by radiation poisoning) showed how much care was needed in using atomic power - and how the barest of chances could still cause disaster. The only really different thing I saw in Cusack's performance (and the script) and the actual incident with Slotin was that Slotin actually took some time after the accident to figure out where all his fellow research scientists were when they were hit by the radiation from the accident (he was able to show that only he got the full effect of the accidental blast, so that only relatively minor treatment would be needed by the others). Perhaps the full story of Slotin's actions was too technical for the screen, but given the humongous pain he suffered in the end that he took time off to think of the others shows what a first rate person he really was.


Everyone who worked on this film did an AMAZING job. This is honestly one of the best lesbian films I've seen in a LONG time. The acting, writing, cinematography, music, visuals, everything was top notch. As an avid fan of the genre (both lesbian films and gymnastics), I was so unbelievably pleased by this film. It truly gave me so much more than I expected across the board. Hearing the Q&A with the cast and crew was great, the lead actress has so much positive energy and is so humble and gracious, it's a pleasure to see people who can be talented and not lose sight of what's really important. And the writer did a hell of a job, as well as directing and the editing was awesome. Thanks so much for making a great film! Thanks also for the line about 'if you're going to slap a label on yourself, it would be bisexual'. I'm so tired of movies where characters who have a relationship with both sexes get passed off as gay or straight, it's wonderful to see bisexuals getting recognition for existing and being part of the gay community, and it was nice that labels weren't even necessary at all in this film. What an ending! Just when I thought it couldn't give me more, it did. Beautiful work and my applauds to all. I will spread the word, this is definitely a film not to be missed!


As an avid cinema go-er i felt that whilst i was ranking my favourite movies i felt it only fair to rank my most hated films.

I'm afraid i really have nothing positive to say about this movie. It is in fact one of only two films that i have ever walked out on. In fairness I went back and watched the movie again to give it another chance and sat through it only to wish that i should have stayed away.

The sad thing is the movie has a really decent cast and crew...but then even the brightest stars in Hollywood cant bring a dead duck of a script to life.

Stay away...Save yourself from this truly woeful 'film' 1/10


This kind of 'inspirational' saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.


Sandler is amazing again... I have already become a Sandler fan. This movie is the saddest Sandler story. Its expression is fantastic. I cried more watching Click but there are some similar points. To consider the value of the family before losing it and to be able to say 'I love you' are a few of the most impressive truths in life... It is tough, it is real... and actually there is a real owner of this success, Binder. I don't think another director could give these emotions in such a way.

Cheadle and Burrows are also amazing... Cheadle is one of my favorites since Crash. Don't expect laughing or much positive atmosphere... If you are ready to face the realities of life, don't miss this movie.


What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. 'Right to Die' is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.

Spoilers here:

Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great 'aloof' fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.

End of Spoiler.

As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, 'Right to Die' benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour.


The first time I watched this show it was OK. There were some funny moments and I laughed a couple of times but this show is getting worse and worse. Carly and Sam's web show is NOT the least bit funny. They play a stupid video from the internet, scream at the camera and make some very bad jokes. And then the laugh track goes off?! One problem with the show is that none of the main characters are funny. Carly is not funny. Miranda Cosgrove's acting is lackluster at best. Her acting in this show is nothing like her acting from Drake And Josh. Her friend Sam is very rude and crude and the show is written in a way that makes her look like some kind of hillbilly. I mean they make jokes about her mom driving a rusty old truck, her mom smashing an old TV with a bat, and then there's the jokes about Sam failing in school, getting detention all the time and running from cops. None of that is funny at all. Then there's Freddy who is a computer geek. He isn't too funny unless his Mom is treating him like a baby. The show's only somewhat funny full time character is Carly's brother Spencer. He makes some funny jokes and does some pretty funny things like pretending to drive a space ship while making spaceship noises, knocking over a girl scouts' cookie table for revenge as they did the same thing to him. His material is the only thing worth laughing at. Aside from the characters other things make the show bad too. Like the fact that a couple of kids doing a local web show from a Seattle apartment is a worldwide hit and got them a free trip to Tokyo? Another thing is that how can a 26 year old single guy with no real job can pay for a 2 level apartment in downtown Seattle and raise his 13 year old sister and pay for a room full of camera and sound equipment including a remote controlled projector and a green screen and an HD camera? This sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. The worst thing is that the show contains some pretty questionable content. There are a couple of times when Carly(remember a 13 year old girl) appears on her internet web show in a bikini top. WTF? Then I saw an episode where Freddy tells Carly and Sam that he 'slept in JUST his socks the night before.' I mean WTF? Then there's an episode where Carly's rival Nevel blackmails her by taking her website rights and agrees to give her the website back in exchange for a kiss. Creepy! And I just saw an episode where Carly meets a boy who just moved into their apartment building and he has some kind of back injury and he takes off his shirt and Carly stands there drooling over him. I can't believe Nick even lets them show that kind off stuff and I can't believe that this was created by the same guy responsible for Drake and Josh. This show is not appropriate for kids under the age of 12 and that's even questionable. iCarly is just another addition to the long list of awful Nick programming.


We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.


Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a 'Big Bad Movie' Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called 'She's Back' about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence 'she's back'. And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh.


20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a 'courtship' is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.

And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.

Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette 'Widmark & Lupino At Fox'. Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But 'Road House' up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.

Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like 'Down To The Sea In Ships' (1949) and the colourful 'Red Skies Of Montana' (1952).


FREDDY has gone from scary to funny,in this 6th installment in the Nightmare series.

 It's been 2 years,well actually 11 since this film takes place in 2001.And FREDDY has killed every last kid on Elm street except one,John Doe(Jacobb from part 5,even doe the film gives on hint who he is),in which he uses to bring more children to come to Elm street.Not only does FREDDY gets his wishes,but he also gets his daughter back to Elm street.When she finds out what is happening,she and other kids decide to kill FREDDY once and for all.We also get to see some of FREDDY's eerie backgrounds.

 Rachel Talalay,who has been contected to the nightmare series for a long time by now.Many people hate this film,but I liked it.It tried to bring out what FREDDY was doing with his wisecrackes...COMDEY and makes the series more funny than scary.So this film is really a comdey sore to speak.It is not the wrost in the series,part 2 still holds it.


Master cinéaste Alain Resnais likes to work with those actors who are a part of his family.In this film too we see Resnais' family members like Pierre Arditi, Sabine Azema, André Dussolier and Fanny Ardant dealing with serious themes like death,religion,suicide,love and their overall implications on our daily lives.The formal nature of relationship shared by these people is evident as even friends, they address each other using a formal you.In 1984,while making L'amour à mort,Resnais dealt with time,memory and space to unravel the mysteries of a fundamental question of human existence :Is love stronger than death ? It was 16 years ago in 1968 that Resnais made a somewhat similar film Je t'aime Je t'aime which was also about love and memories.Message of this film is loud and clear :true and deep love can even put science to shame as dead lovers regain their lost lives leaving doctors to care for their reputation.L'amour à mort is like a game which is not at all didactic.It is a film in which the musical score is in perfect tandem with its images.This is one of the reasons why this film can easily be grasped.


One of the joys of picking up the recent Bela Lugosi collection is getting to see delightful movies like The Invisible Ray. Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi team up in a movie that delves into meteorites and radiation and while the science is all perfectly absurd (especially the camera technique Karloff, as Janos Rukh, uses to determine the site of a certain meteorite) and downright laughable, I didn't care in the lease because the movie is thoroughly enjoyable. The effects are done well for the time, the acting is great, and the finish is particularly strong. It reminds me of the pulp sci-fi comics and novels of the 1940s and '50s, complete with ray guns and ridiculous science. You must watch this movie!


OK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.

It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.

The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P)


That film is absolutely fantastic!! If you watch it with your friends it can be a very nice day... Obviously you have to know that the film is stupid and very bad directed and acted (Tomba/Unziker what a couple), and that is probably the worse film in the world, but you can enjoy it very much. We watched it in 19 and it was a very nice evening. The best scenes are the first one, when the criminals kill the friend of Alex, and he tries to act like a desperate, and the result is a comic scene of first category... And then when he shows to Leva (Antevleva, what a name) the 'Palassio di giusstissia', and then the accident of Leva, that once is going on her car out of the road, and a second later, the car is completely empty! What a magic!


This Is one of my favourite westerns. What a cast! Glenn Ford plays his role In his usual mild, controlled but firm manner. Ford plays one of the smaller ranchers In the shadow of the mighty anchor ranch that wants to swallow up the whole territory. Edward G Robinson plays the crippled patriarch of the anchor ranch and Barbera Stanwyck plays his sly scheming wife. There Is plenty of action In this western that Is quite Impressive, the scenery Is delicious and the letterbox scope photography Is breath taking and the soundtrack Is stereo! I would say that this western had a size-able budget It looks expensive. One of a series of great Glenn Ford westerns.


Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts.

There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters.

Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.

Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character.

If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did.

I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.


i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the'R' rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the 'R' rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the 'R' rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10


After wasting 2 hours of my life watching this movie on late night television, I went back and reread some of the IMDb material, to remind myself of why I watched it in the first place. In hindsight, the only thing that I can think of is that the genre generally appeals to me. But this movie was a total waste of effort. It fails on every level, and to see that it's described on IMDb as a comedy really leaves me at a loss. I don't recall more than a couple of chuckles. There are more laughs in any episode of Law and Order than in The Last Man. Seriously.

Too much of the characters' interaction just didn't seem to me to have any foundation, and was therefore very unlikely/unbelievable.

If it hadn't been for the almost-gratuitous bikini shots, well, what can I say? Avoid this movie like the plague. Or tape it and just fast forward to the bikini shots. Do not spend even $1 to rent it though.


Look, this is quite possibly one of the best movies America has to offer the rest of the world. To hate this movie is to hate freedom itself. I remember that the early 80's were a time of uncertainty. The economy was weak, communism threatened us all, and nuclear destruction was almost a certainty. Out of that confusion came a hero, Stroker Ace. Ned Beatty's performance in this movie showed he was never again to be type cast as a one dimensional victim in the wilderness. His triumph is an inspiration to all. The on-screen chemistry between Burt and Loni draws obvious comparisons to Brad and Jennifer. Jim Nabors is a poet. Go see this movie tonight!


Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in 'Diva Las Vegas'. I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing 'Stay With Me' from her 1979 movie 'The Rose'. You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums.


Yes, it's 'Flipper'. But writer/director Alan Shapiro has put together a gem of a version. Spectacular above and underwater photography from 'Jaws' veteran Bill Butler and haunting music by Joel McNeely and Crosby, Stills & Nash make this truly memorable family entertainment. Shapiro, whose last film was improbably 'The Crush', shows himself once again to be an extremely talented -- and versatile -- filmmaker. Rent it!


Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.

He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and 'show and tell' to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.

I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through 'Arli$$' on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.


This is probably the first entry in the 'Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat' detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.

A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.

While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.

A creepy film; worth seeing!


'Zen and the Art of Lanscaping', written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. 'Zen and the Art of Landscaping' is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend.


As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...

Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.

If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.


This is a great off-the-wall romantic comedy about love, work, pandering to the public taste, and midlife crises. The main character is a talented movie director who decides to make a silly PG-13 movie to get himself out of hock with the IRS. It has an excellent cast, a wide range of humor (from deadpan to slapstick), and fine writing. It's also a wry send-up of the movie industry. The metacommentary includes several excellent cuts between reality and the movie that's being made, and in some places the film departs from strict realism. The result is a multi-dimensional masterpiece of wry midlife humor.


I gave 'Airport '79' only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.

A'79 really does seem like an early version of 'Airplane!' Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned 'drone' missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.

And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, 'Nope.' Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.)

In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional.


This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.

HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6/10.

Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8/10


I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.

The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.

The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.

So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the 'background' sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.

The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.

The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that 'home movie' quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer.

If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs.


Martin Weisz, who directed the solid 'Rohtenburg', will be taking the heat, with Wes Craven, for another shabby 'The Hills Have Eyes 2'. The memory of the legendary original, which boasted an unbelievable storyline and a dog having a flashback, will be erased forever by this more technically polished remake (in name only). A bunch of National Guardsmen (and women) are sent to a desert research area surrounded by hills filled with mutants. One by one the weekend soldiers are picked off. That's it. There is some hardcore violence and a reasonably brutal rape scene, but there is precious little else to get excited about. The film's 'heroes' are the usual bunch of clichés and the mutants, a far cry from Craven's original 'family', mostly resemble Brian Thompson from 'Cobra' coupled with some creatures Stan Winston had left over from the 'Wrong Turn' shoot. Much of the action takes place in caves, ala 'The Descent', and is well shot by Sam McCurdy. A laughable aspect is Wes and Jonathan Craven's addition of a sympathetic mutant who skulks around his cave like Leatherface in Hooper's original 'Chainsaw'. Weisz will be blamed for this dull debacle, but he's not really at fault because he does his best to maintain suspense and squeeze some freshness out of the contrived situations. Not a fan, unfortunately.


The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.

There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, 'Who are those guys?' Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.

The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.

If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction.


The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a 'Bourne identity' kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.

Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material.maybe.


I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T 'go there' ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of 'why???' that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary.


Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? 'I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!' Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.


Feeling Minnesota is not really a road movie, but that's still the best categorization I can generate. A road movie does not primarily depend on a great story line, and since the plot of this movie is truly pathetic, it does fulfil that description. To be interesting, such a movie must rely entirely on moving and intriguing characters, and on the chemistry between them. Unfortunately the staff of Feeling Minnesota fails utterly in producing this excitement.

The initializing presentation of the characters is unsatisfying and confusing; I can, for example, not figure out whether Jjaks (Keanu Reeves) did grow up in the house of his mother and brother or not. It is said, by his mother (Tuesday Weld), that he must live with his father, but nothing in the film suggests that it ever happens. The same goes for the rest of the characters - I never get to know them. They appear irrational, and no real explanation is given to why they do so.

The bottom line is that I leave the movie without any feelings for the characters, except dullness and perhaps a tiny kick of attraction for the cute Cameron Diaz.


This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.

This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average.


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.


I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.

 It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.


Madison is not too bad-if you like simplistic, non-offensive, 'family-friendly' fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the 'glory years' (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a 'heroic' musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a 'Rocky' salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, 'The sport deserves better than this.'

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971


Care Bears Movie 2: A New Generation isn't at all a bad movie. In fact, I like it very much. Yes I admit the dialogue is corny and the story is a bit poorly told at times. But Darkheart, while very very dark is a convincing enough shape shifting villain, and Hadley Kay did a superb job voicing him. Speaking of the voice acting, it was great, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The animation is colourful, and some of the visuals particularly at the beginning were breathtaking. The songs and score are lovely, especially Growing Up and Forever Young, the latter has always been my personal favourite of the two. The care bears, who I do like, are adorable, and the human children are well done too. And the ending is a real tearjerker. All in all, harmless kiddie fun. 8/10 Bethany Cox


This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.

Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.

I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his 'episodes,' though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his 'honour,' this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.

When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.

When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he 'accidentally' spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.

The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these 'big' words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.

Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.

Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. 'Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself.' A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.

Finally, to add a bit of 'fairness' to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.

A failure.


When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.

Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!

The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the 'normal' folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.

As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.


It infuriates me no end that, now and forever, I will have to identify this movie (which I consider a masterpiece, and I don't use that word lightly) with the qualifier 'Not the Michael Douglas movie!' Not only are the titles the same, but they refer to the same thing- the radioactive fallout that rained upon the survivors of the first nuclear bombings. In Imamura's film, this is no cheap metaphor; the whole movie is about the fallout, physical and emotional, from Hiroshima and the war itself. As the deterioration of a couple and their grown niece becomes more grimly clear, the ironic imagery becomes more potent, from the old clock that is reset each night to the stone gods that gradually pile up outside the heroine's door. (These, in turn, are carved by a shellshocked veteran who is compelled, in a series of tragicomic episodes, to attack anything with a motor that approaches the town.) The bombing day itself is shown in piecemeal flashbacks that are coolly horrifying. Yet 'Black Rain' ('NtMDm!') can be watched, even repeatedly, because of Imamura's compassion for his characters. I repeat: a masterpiece.


Other reviewers seem to have held this film in high regard. For something made by an eighteen year old film student, I would say bravo, but that is not the case. If you want to watch a good movie about graffitti stick to the documentaries. It is filmed with the same quality as a digital home video. The two main characters are dismal actors and once again that would be okay if this were a student film. The plot follows a lonely artist who skateboards around Portland writing graffitti. He is joined by another and they skate around together creating art. Then comes the unnecessary gay love scene. Then comes the dispute between them that is never actually discussed because this film has about as much dialogue as a charlie chaplin picture. This movie does show the gravity street artists give to their form well, and the music is nice, but overall I wouldn't really call it a film.


I had seen this movie before, but I could not remember it was this fantastic: it has a fun plot, Madonna fumbles around the city with pumas etc. causing a commotion. And the music is just perfect! And the happy ending! Who´s that girl is a great choice for a romanticist like me. In my opinion this could be even the best Madonna movie I have ever seen! 10/10


I first saw the opening of Otto Preminger's 'Porgy and Bess' on TV, probably some time in the early 80s, and my younger self found it a bit slow, despite the timeless music. I turned it off

Last night, an extremely rare, cobbled together print screened at the L.A. Cinematheque and it was a bit of a revelation. The performances are strong and memorable. Dorothy Dandridge brings a great deal of vulnerability, strength and subtle (at least by today's standards) eroticism to her part. Sidney Poitier is said to be uncomfortable with the movie, but his performance is terrific, as is Pearl Bailey. Even better are Sammy Davis as the amoral, cat-like Sportin' Life and Brock Peters as the villanious bully Crown.

Still, I'm no fan of Preminger's earlier, leaden -- and far easier to see -- 'Carmen Jones.' Porgy and Bess' is far superior to that less controversial film -- though that may have to do with the fact that the source material is also far superior.

As seen last night, this is a sturdy but far from perfect work. Not all of the moments quite come alive, and there is some awkwardness in the way the film mixes the overtly stylized Catfish Row set (beautifully done by Oliver Smith) with actual locations. Also, even to my rather untrained ear, some brief portions of the score seem unduly popularized.

Moreover, while this doesn't detract from the achievement of the filmmakers -- Preminger's decision to film almost entirely in wide shots, with no close-ups and occasional medium shots, no doubt rendered it unwatchable on TV 'panned and scanned' and may doom it even on widescreen DVDs if it gets the restoration it deserves. On smaller screens, we won't be able to make out the many details that are crucial to the way Preminger staged the film.

Also, the mix heard last night was odd. Many of the vocals, particularly on the opening 'Summertime' seemed unduly soft and were overwhelmed by the instrumental music. Perhaps this can be fixed in a restoration.

There is the issue of the film's racial politics. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, at least in a contemporary context. At the time when so few films depicted strong African-American characters, this may have seemed an unfortunate choice for a big-budget Hollywood film. And, while there may not be much 'empowering' here, these are recognizable human beings that are not racial stereotypes. These are operatic characters who make poor choices because that's what tragic characters do. That alone made it a giant stride forward at the time.

In a modern context where strong and heroic African-American characters are less rare (though still not common enough), these characters seem nothing more nor less than human. They truly could be poor and undereducated people of any ethnic background.

Thorny politics aside, the original work is undoubtedly one of the truly great achievements of American music and (secondarily) theater. Poitier, Davis, Dandridge, Peters and, yes Pearl Bailey, were all amazing performers who we'll never see the likes of again. This less than perfect but still solid film clearly deserves to be seen and treasured.


At least among those movies with 100 votes or more. Nominated for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Brenda Blethyn nominated for best actress in a leading role?? Nominated for best picture?? I always disagree with many of the Oscar picks, but this movie might very well be the worst movie of all time to be honored by the Academy. The writing and acting were both horrible. Blethyn's perfomance in particular was one of the worst I've ever seen, and probably the most over-rated acting performance of all time. Awful movie, not worthy of the big screen and not worthy of any cable or television channel that has ever played it, including HBO(where I saw it). I am only thankful I didn't actually pay to see one of the most over-rated movies of all time.


The film deals with universal themes, mentioning no specific country as its context: it could happen anywhere--and has, in substance if not form. Those concerned about 1st amendment issues, censorship, et al--but don't want to be bored with lectures--need art such as this to illustrate, dramatize, teach, inspire.

Rickman is certainly an under appreciated character actor; he shines in this film, showing off multiple acting talents that you must see (I have yet to see him give a bad performance, though, even in not-so-great films). Stowe gives perhaps her best performance (and proves that she possesses one of the most striking pair of eyes in Hollywood)--in two words: stunning, convincing.

The set design perfectly matches the situation, in function and mood. The sound editing heightens to appropriate effect. The total contrast conveyed through the animation sequences is a perfect symbolic device-and the welcome and only respite to the bulk of the story's necessary venue. The script is tight and essential, with engagingly dramatic-yet realistic-dialogue (i.e., as it might be and ought to be). Perhaps the most amazing aspect to contend with is the fact that 1) this is the director's first time out; and 2) he is the writer. In one phrase: a tour de force--with three recommendations: see it, own a copy, see it repeatedly to fathom all its secrets and grasp all it genius.


It is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.


There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...

The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.

From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.

Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...


Relesed from Troma (which is my favorite movie company)Unspeaksble is a messy horror film that can be interesting but very dark and twisted.

Unspeakable starts with a family in a car, they get into an accident which leaves a daughter dead and a mother deformed. the father eventually goes crazy and slashes prostitutes. He sees his daughter in other people. He kills for her. Meanwhile his now deformed wife is being raped by her orderly. These are sick people!

Unspeakable tries to be sick and disturbing and it does manage to do that as a good horror flick this is not. Most Troma movies have a sense of humor to them but however this one doesn't.


My Comments for VIVAH :- Its a charming, idealistic love story starring Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao. The film takes us back to small pleasures like the bride and bridegroom's families sleeping on the floor, playing games together, their friendly banter and mutual respect. Vivah is about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of commitment between two individuals. Yes, the central romance is naively visualized. But the sneaked-in romantic moments between the to-be-married couple and their stubborn resistance to modern courtship games makes you crave for the idealism. The film predictably concludes with the marriage and the groom, on the wedding night, tells his new bride who suffers from burn injuries: 'Come let me do your dressing'

V I V A H - showcases a lot of good things - beauty of arranged marriage, beauty of Indian culture, beauty of Indian woman, last but not least a nice IDEALISM of the about-to-be-couple waiting to get married .... playing by the rules ! Simple yet Beautiful; Such a Simple story .... no plot ... no villain - as is the case with most of Sooraj Barjatya films. Sooraj sir is back to what he does BEST. He has made the movie with FULL CONVICTION. Its a very sweet film - which teaches the current generation a lot of good things bout Arranged Marriage & the Union of 2 Families. I think AMRITA RAO - looks very good & she has acted very well. She has most of the good scenes - although i thought the last half hour was completely to Shahid Kapur - who for a change gives an awesomely restrained performance. I also liked the acting of all others for ex. the Choti i.e. Amrita Prakash, Alok Nath, Anupam Kher, Shahid's bro & sis-in-law. It almost seemed as real and recognizable as it could. Sooraj sir has got another nice family film to his credit after Maine Pyar Kiya, HAHK & Hum Saath Saath Hain. The chemistry between Shahid & Amrita is AWESOME.

Stuff like Sanctity in a Marriage/Relationship, Avoiding Courtship, Mutual Respect, Care & Space, Waiting for getting Married 'officially', Praying/Sacrficing for Ur Beloved - all these and more get SHOWCASED in Vivah. There's still some good audience who r going & enjoying this film. Some of the folks/audience are already excited after seeing, that they r thinking bout Arranged-Marriage :) Thats Success if you ask me. it seems AMRITA RAO - our actress-from-Vivah {Result for a nice performance} has been bestowed the prestigious DADSAHEB PHALKE award for 2006 !! Hats off to her for this achievement Chalo, even though Vivah , Shahid or Amrita didn't get any of the film-fare & other awards; @ least this is news to CHEER about !! Congrats to AMRITA RAO- for showing us a visual of Indian Bride-to-be in the purest form and Of Course to Sooraj Barjatya for portraying her the best way :) Shudn't forget Shahid Kapur and all others who make VIVAH as sweet and legendary as it is today !! Imagine, to share the same pedestal as the legendary Dilip Kumar .......... Its no mean achievement !! Congrats to Amrita Rao - for taking her Career to another level with this award .... I personally feel - she should keep doing movies only with Shahid Kapur !! They make a cute couple and their on-screen chemistry reminds me of {SRK-Kajol} or {Aamir Khan & Juhi Chawla} .................

Some points that I observed,few of the elements :- #1 If u notice carefully, Amrita Rao looks so good because shes always wearing traditional dresses. She gives every bit of the Indian Woman essence - in this film !! Perfect Fit #2 Shahid Kapur is like most of us - not exactly ready for marriage or early-marriage .... but PREM listens carefully to the step-wise talk given by his DAD - having full faith in Anupam Kher. Eventually 'Honesty' & 'Trust' are the keywords that he reflects in his first talk with Amrita. Most people would think such a first meeting with a total stranger plus for a limited time is never enough to judge a person. But according to what I saw in this film, I have a feeling - that Two people who are made for each other can connect within a 1st meet also, Its possible !!! #3 In the entire movie - there are basically 4 or 5 sequences where Shahid & Amrita are together - or shown to be together. Its unlike most other romantic/wedding-based movies where Hero & Heroine are always singing/dancing or nowadays - doing cheap stuff. But the beauty of each of these 5 sequences :- Characterized by restraint, innocence & respect for the other ! #4 I really liked the relationship shown between Chacha ALOK NATH & Amrita Rao. These kinda movies should highlight the indifference shown to daughters/girl-kids in some parts of India. #5 Romantic scenes between lead couple are shot very nicely - no cheap scenes,songs are beautifully pictured !! Words like 'Jal','praarthana' e.t.c. are going to be buzzwords for all girls who liked this film :) Personally, I really am fond of many dialogs in this film. #6 Last but not the least - The entire Hospital Scene where Shahid puts 'sindhoor' to Amrita when shes struggling for Life - is terrific. Those dialogs between the couple are so touching and U feel the LOVE/I-cant-do-without-U ; Its a Hats-Off feeling !!!

*** In many ways, VIVAH reminded me of Maine Pyar Kiya, DDLJ, Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam - for the freshness/on-screen-chemistry of the LEAD pair :) :) *** IF U ASK ME :- Along with films like Rang De Basanti, Lage Raho Munnabhai, DOR, CORPORATE and Kabul Express, V I V A H ranks among the best films made in 2006. IN FACT - i think Vivah does deserve better viewing/business than Dhoom2 or Fanaa or Golmaal or all those time-pass/fuzzy/style/crap movies !!


This movie was very funny with just a bit of gore. It is about two grave robber that are going about business as usual when they discover that there is a different clientèle they can serve. This changes the direction of the corpses they collect. The movie is told by the younger of the two as he is explaining the business to a priest before he is sent to be beheaded. His partner had already been beheaded. The priest is required to take down the last confession and it takes the form of a story. There is some animation thrown in which gives it a Tales From the Crypt feel. In the story we meet another group of grave robbers that everyone fears, but at one point, the younger of the two up for execution is offered a job, so this calms some of the animosity between the groups. When a woman joins the two men, she oversteps her boundaries and gets them in trouble with the feared grave robbers. The story leads up to the meeting of the two groups, which led to the arrest of the man that is confessing and the man that has already lost his head.


Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!

Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)

When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and 'passionate nature' in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.

The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.

The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!

Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful!


This movie is a muddled mish-mash of clichés from recent cinema. There are some promising ideas in there, but while the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a confusing mess. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a fair job but with no central theme it seems as though he doesn't have much to work with. Furthermore, the movie is largely devoid of scares (although, in fairness, there are some creepy moments amid the drudgery).

*MILD SPOILERS*

We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The only real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - not very scary.

*END SPOILERS*

Avoid this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale, check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).


'The Lady in Question (1999)' starring Gene Wilder is a well-acted mystery drama that reminds me of the old black-and-white Raymond Burr Perry Mason series. Both Perry and 'Cash' kept me guessing right up to the end. There were many suspects with a motive for the murder, but I had no idea which character it would be.

Gene Wilder has a special charming wit about him, even in his facial expressions and vocal inflections which make him perfect for the part. The portions of the movie which portrayed actors acting was done very well. I'm sure this is an additional challenge for the cast to pull off. I am not surprised to see that he did some of the writing for the movie. Even his singing was a delight. I like him in this role more than his former 'sillier' roles like 'The Young Frankenstein' and 'Willy Wonka.' I am hoping A & E will continue this series. They ought to call it something like 'The A & E Gene Wilder Mysteries.'

The music fit the period. I enjoyed the cool live combo and the swing tunes. I was a little unclear at the beginning whether we were seeing a flashback or whether the action was taking place in that time period. And I do not agree that the inclusion of profanity is necessary to the flow of the script. To me, that always distracts.

Overall, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this second in a well-crafted start in what we hope will be many others -- just like one of our other favorites: Raymond Burr's Perry Mason.


Lost isn't the greatest TV show in history, but it's not far off. It doesn't have the plot or characterisation of The West Wing or possibly even early ER, however, it is arguably the most continuously gripping show I have every come across. I love the way I can't guess what's going to happen. I love the re-telling of the characters' back stories which often give rise to new dimensions for us to see them in. In some ways I want the show to last forever, but I think they can get 6-7 seasons out of it before they have to end it on a glorious high. The combination of the characters and their nationalities coupled with the show's fluidity for moving backwards and forwards thus extending dead characters 'life spans' all adds to the overwhelming sense that this show is something very different from what we are used to. It's captivating, surprising and (here's a little suggestion for all of you conspiracy theorists) more than a little interactive- keep those internet discussions going- you're only adding to the plot...


I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie was. Whether you're a gore fan or a suspense fan; you'll love this. I used to dislike horror movies, considered them stupid. But, anyway, it happens I make exceptions. I find something really extraordinary in this film. Rarely have I ever seen a film that has scared the crap out of me but I tell you the truth this film gave me shivers down my neck. Unlike most horror films this one cares about the development of the characters. I highly recommend this film and I'm glad that Asylum are finally bringing out good horror movies these days

I recommend! Enjoy!


Robert Cummings, Laraine Day and Jean Muir star in 'And One Was Beautiful,' a 1940 film also starring Billie Burke. At one hour and 15 minutes, this looks to have been a B movie. Cummings is a playboy, Ridley Crane, whom many women desire, including two sisters, Katherine and Helen Latimer (Day and Muir). Katherine is the more earthbound of the two who likes to fix cars, and Helen is the blonde social butterfly with the beautiful gowns. Ridley arrives back in town, and, believing he's not going to be at a party, Helen decides not to attend. Since the party is given by a family friend, their mother (Burke) sends Katherine in a pinned up dress. Ridley is there, and the two connect. But Ridley is into more superficiality, and when he sees Helen at a dinner party, the two pick up where they left off and go to a club. He becomes terribly drunk, and Helen at first refuses to ride in his car because he won't let her drive. After walking awhile and breaking the heel of her shoe, she gets into Ridley's car when he drives by. He passes out, and she takes over the wheel, accidentally hitting and killing a bicyclist.

Ridley can't remember anything, so Helen lets him take the blame for the death. The heel of a woman's shoe is found in the car, and Katherine sees her sister bury her shoes - plus, something in Helen's manner makes her realize that Helen isn't telling the truth. Ridley is convicted and goes to prison, and Helen marries a man she doesn't love and leaves for South America.

This is a wonderful film, even though at the time, this wasn't an A-list cast. Cummings is playing a part that Robert Taylor would have played (it's an MGM film) - he's handsome and very amiable, even if he doesn't have the dazzling looks of someone like Taylor. Laraine Day is a favorite actress of mine, someone MGM loaned out constantly because they didn't know what to do with her. Why, I wonder - a wonderful actress with a great face and voice, she livened up many a film. This one is no different. Her Katherine is determined, sympathetic and totally lovely. Jean Muir is a lousy actress.

So who was the beautiful one? We all know even if MGM didn't.

Highly recommended little gem.


It finally hit me watching my VHS of Christmas in Connecticut what other film this one reminded me of. If it weren't for the fact that the other was done 20 years later, I'd say it was a remake.

Just as Rock Hudson was a phony fishing expert for Abercrombie&Fitch who had to get some on the job training at a fishing tournament, Barbara Stanwyck plays an forties version of Martha Stewart.

Stanwyck's a cooking columnist who's built up this whole image of living on a small Connecticut farm with husband and baby cooking all these marvelous delicacies. Trouble is she's unmarried, childless, writes her column from her apartment in New York and doesn't know how to boil water. But her writing is a hit with the public.

Trouble comes when she's hijacked into cooking a home Christmas dinner for a war hero sailor played by Dennis Morgan who gets to sing a couple of songs as well. Got to keep up the image at any cost. And her publisher Sidney Greenstreet likes the idea so well that he invites himself to the dinner.

So with borrowed farm, baby, and Reginald Gardiner who'd like to make it real with Stanwyck she tries to brazen it through.

Christmas in Connecticut's now a Yuletide classic and deservedly so. The leads are warm and human and they get great support from the assembled players. S.Z. Sakall as the Hungarian restaurant owner/friend of Stanwyck from whom she gets her cooking information and Una O'Connor as the housekeeper have a nice chemistry between them. Reginald Gardiner and Stanwyck have no chemistry at all, obvious to all but Reggie and he's funny in his stuffed shirt way.

Most people remember this film as one of Sidney Greenstreet's few ventures into comedy. If he's not an outright villain, a cynical observer of life or a tyrannical tycoon, Greenstreet is few other things on screen. Christmas in Connecticut gave him a rare opportunity to burlesque his own image and he made the most of it.

In a biography of Barbara Stanwyck, she mentions she enjoyed making Christmas in Connecticut as a welcome change from some villainous parts like Double Indemnity she'd been doing recently. One of the things that made doing the film so enjoyable was that between takes, director Peter Godfrey and Greenstreet would do some impromptu entertaining of cast and crew with English Music Hall numbers. Made for a relaxed and warm set and the cast responded accordingly.

Now if only someone had been filming those numbers.


The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness. Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to ask itself questions.


Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.

First of all the term 'plot' does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.

The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: 'That's damn unrealistic'. But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.

The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.

Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an 'Art' isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your 'child'.


My Name is Earl(2005)

Review:......For I have seen this.

This is something else. First off, how is this rated so high? I cannot understand that. This 'show' is filled to the top with either annoying people, stupid people, or just plain unlikeable. The 'gags' are hideous.

I saw one episode where the wife of Earl's brother wrapped and washed herself with dead fish. Not kidding. That wasn't funny, that's repulsive. Then she and Earl's extremely stupid brother(and I mean stupid) then had sex. I nearly threw up.

This has to be one of the most desperate attempts at comedy in a long time. Jason Lee is a talented actor, but is trapped in a helpless role in this horrible 'comedy'.

Earl is now in jail for this current season. Let's hope he gets the chair just so this show gets put out of it's misery.

The Last Word: This show would be funny to people who think Larry the Cable guy is funny. To the rest of the world, NOT A CHANCE. Avoid like the plague.


I saw the movie late one night on cable and could not believe how bad it was. I usually enjoy bad movies, but this one was so revolting that it wasn't even entertaining. Some of the highlights of this film include the absurd music which is constantly playing throughout the movie, the hideous special effects (when someone is shot with a laser gun they turn neon green and promptly disintegrate), and the disgusting acting. The acting, in fact, is what I feel steals the show. I didn't recognize any of the actors in the movie, and I hope that I never have to see any of them again. Overall, I recommend renting this movie (if you can find it; I can't imagine a video store carrying this garbage) just so that you can learn to appreciate quality films after seeing this trash.


This is a nice little movie with a nice story, that plays the most important role in the entire movie.

It's a quite intriguing dramatic story, with also romance present in it. The story is being told slowly but this works out all too well for its build up. The characters are nice and portrayed nicely by its actors. Normally I'm not a too big fan of the Asian acting style but the acting in this movie was simply good.

Of course the movie is quite different in its approach and style from other genre movies, produced in the west. In a way this movie is more advanced already with its approach than the western movies made during the same era.

I only wished the movie its visual style would had been a bit better. For a movie that is considered a kind of an art-house movie this movie is certainly lacking in some well looking sequences. This was obviously a quite cheap movie to make and it got made quite generically. Not that this is a bad thing, it just prevent this movie from truly distinct itself and raising itself above the genre.

But oh well, this movie is all about its well constructed story and characters that are in it. In that regard this movie most certainly does not disappoint.

8/10


Great story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffers from bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do their part but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could have been a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense/mystery/thriller.Ryan looked so young and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryan fans.....


Oh what the heck, I'll reveal the secret: this movie stinks!

Yeah there are some nifty dinosaur effects that, for their time, were probably really exciting to watch. Now they don't cut it, but they're not terrible. They're just good enough to tolerate without being able to laugh at it. So they just sit there, and i sit watching this, not laughing, not excited, just, well, bored. It stinks!

If I can exercise my Jay Sherman for a moment, the film really does. The box promises cowboys versus dinosaurs, and in very generic sense it delivers. Guys dressed like cowboys fight a couple of big dinosaurs. But really these guys are a bunch of sissies, and the hero is a loser (more on this later) and the dinosaurs are hardly intimidating. The plot is a yawner, and there isn't much technically wrong with it that's there to laugh at. It's all just gray and bland.

After some dreadful night cinematography (Filmed in one and a half colors I called it), we get the plot which involves some people, doing stuff. That was what I caught. Oh and they are at the turn of the century in Mexico, so they at least dress like cowboys even if they don't act like it.

So a bunch of these people, who I think were human, they go in the desert, and they stumble on these dinosaurs (after they find a miniature horse...I don't know, let's just move on). Then the movie degrades into a really pathetic King Kong ripoff in the final act. At that point I had lost the will to even keep my eyes at television level, and I drifted in and out of consciousness.

The 'hero' is played by the guy from Beneath the Planet of the Apes who essentially played Charlton Heston's part when Heston decided he didn't want to be in the sequel. He was picked cause, shock o' shocks, he looks exactly like Heston. That's about all he has going for him. I was really upset when he was the hero of the film cause all he does is glower, snear, bag the chick in the film (Who's named T.J...unfortunately she's not a prostitute or finally the origin of the name would have been revealed). Meanwhile his friend kills all the dinosaurs, saves the day numerous times, and what does he get for it? Not recognition, no nothing! And he dies, sacrificing himself for his friends! They don't even wait up for him while they escape!

Boring, long, slowly paced, with little to enjoy until the film decides to carbon copy King Kong's script onto it's own, it's best to avoid this film unless you enjoy pain on the scale of dropping an anvil on your eyeball.


Something I think some people miss about great science fiction is that it predicts some part of the future. No other theatrical movie that I can recall predicted that when the space shuttle went to study Halley's Comet that a disaster would occur! Some differences were: the 'Churchill' (the shuttle in the movie) actually went to the comet, the 'Challenger' was only in low earth orbit; The 'Churchill' was merely burned out inside, whereas the 'Challenger' exploded--hey the vampires had to get back to earth. One great similarity (and this is always bad luck!) both had mixed male/female crews--the legend of Halley's comet and disaster continues!

Other than this there is not much more to be said about this movie that hasn't been said before. As a outer space/science fiction/horror/sex film individually it provided nothing really new, but as in all great dishes it is the combination that counts. And taken together, this was a highly original and satisfying combination.

I just wish Mathilda May would drain her victims through another part of the body!


In short this movie was awful.

I understand it's a Disney movie, which are generally shallow movies with mediocre plots and bad acting. HOWEVER, i must say this is the worst of all Disney movies, with bad acting, LOTS OF IRRITATING SHRIEKING TEEN GIRLS(my god), and an extremely unrealistic plot. Even as a 12 year old there is no way i would have liked this movie. The only way this movie could have been any worse is if they attempted to put it in theaters or tried to sell it in a local video store.

Do yourself a favor and change the channel before watching this, no matter how bored you are on a Sunday afternoon.


One True Thing proves that it's the characters which make a movie. Streep will surely receive an Oscar nomination for her role. A beautiful drama, One True Thing is a prime example of movie-making in the late 1990's - there are still people out there who care about making and watching movies other than the big blockbusters with million dollar special effects. It's no Best Picture or anything... don't be silly. But the amount of emotion that was delivered by both the actors and the writer hit me like a shock-wave. I cried twice in this movie, which says a lot for a 24 year old man.


After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, 'We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it' seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, 'I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip' with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The 'reasoning' behind each plot turn and new 'clue' is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for 'never shutting up.' She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a 'Dr.' title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, 'Don't you ever shut up?' and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy....


Beyond Rangoon is one of the most emotional and intense films ever made. Superbly directed by John Boorman, and intensly acted by Patricia Arquette, this film can easily be called one of the best films of the 90's. The story and vivid characters just grab the audience from the very opening, and never lets go. After seeing the film, the viewer will never be able to forget 'Beyond Rangoon'. The film made little money at the box office, and is little known, but should be high profile. Watching it, you can tell that it was meant to be seen by a large audience. It is a very important and moving film, and should be seen by everyone.


Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...

Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.

Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.

With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.

Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).