Waitress: Honey, here's them eggs you ordered. Honey, like bee, get it? That's called pointless foreshadowing.

Edward Basket: Huh? (On the road) Basket: Here's your doll back, little girl. You really shouldn't be so careless with your belongings.

Little girl: Yeah, whatever.

Crash! Boom! Whoosh! Crackle Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.

(Later) Basket: Mmmm. Vicodin! What the ? (Tears open letter.) Wow! My ex-girl's handwriting has really improved. And look, her missing daughter looks kinda like the girl with the doll I accidentally was sort of responsible for getting killed, in a way. And she kind of has my hairline. I wonder, should I torture myself and go find her? Let's see what my friends at the precinct think.

Basket's fellow male cop: HAHAHA. Willow's a funny name.

Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.

(On the island) Basket: What's in the sack? AHHH.

Tree-named crone: It's not her daughter, though.

(In the tavern) Basket: Can you swing that? Big-boned, tree-named tavern wench: Huh? Basket: (smashes a bee). Everything is OK.

Sensually pretty, formerly promising actress playing a lusty tavern scullery maid: That's good. Honey's not a plant, though.

(On the greensward) Willow: Oh, yeah, and I forgot, you are the father my child, Conan, er, I mean Rowen. (Yawns.) I could have stayed and had a life with you. But I didn't. I wanted to be princess of the beehive, instead. I mean, never mind. (Nods off, jerks awake, widens eyes to anime proportions). Mwah, kiss-kiss. Love ya! What were we talking about? Basket: Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Willow: Edward. Sniff. Blink. Why. Are. You. Yelling. At. Me? Is it because I jacked your Vicodin? Sniff. Snore. What were we talking about? Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.

Willow: My lips hurt.

(In the schoolroom) Rose: What is man? Unappealling twins, in unison: Phallic symbol, phallic symbol.

Rose: Echo? Echo? Basket: Step away from the bike.

Rose: And I'm the good twin.

Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.

(At the beehives) Basket: Hmmm. Hallo? Ow, ow, ow, oh bother. Silly old bear. Snore.

(At the Queen Bee's mansion) Sister Summersisle: You have so much potential. What are you doing here? Weren't you the stud Cher slapped in the face in Moonstruck? (Licks lips.) Basket: I was about to ask you the same thing. Where's the girl? Sister Summersisle: How you drone on. Let's talk about the significance of my superfluous 's.' Basket: Look out for that semi-truck barreling toward us! Aaaaah! Oh. Never mind. Goddammit! (Pops another pill.) Mmmm. Thorazine.

(Back at the tavern) Big-boned, supercilious tavern wench: I've tried Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig, South Beech, and I still went up a bear-suit size since last year.

Tree-named crone: HAHAHA. All the better to roast that nosy cop in, my dear.

Big-boned wench: Totally.

Basket: That was the last straw that broke the Basket Case's back! Take that, wench! (Slugs her.) (Edward Basket is mysteriously attacked from behind) Voluptuous tavern wench: EEEE! Snap out of it! Leave the island already and take me with you! Do I have to tackle you or what? Snap out of it, I say! EEEE! Basket: Take that, wench! (Courageously kicks her in the face. Her eyes roll back in her head and become cartoon Xs.) Voluptuous wench: Snore (At the Nicolas Cage roast) Ellen Burstyn: And who can forget the part where Basket's cell phone rings in the middle of his bear suit scene and then the call gets dropped. It's like a wireless ad: Help me! Can you hear me now? Hahaha.

Kate Beahan: And remember when I produced the bullets I jacked from Basket's gun? He looked so surprised. You should be more careful with your belongings, Nick. Hahaha. And your movie choices.

All: The drone must die! Basket: (screaming) Oh, yeah, you bitches? Well, roasting me isn't gonna help your goddamn honey! Aaah. My legs! Honey, (honey, get it?) put down that torch and step away from the Basket Case. Honey! Smokey bear says don't play with matches. Hahaha. What the? Look out for that hurtling semi-truck! Ahh! Oh. Goddammit, these flashbacks from my drug experimentation phase in the seventies are getting old! Where's my heroin? Ouch. Ouch. My watch isn't fireproof. Ouch. I think something bad is about to happen. Can you hear me now? I'm ready for my close up. Goddammit! (Six months later) Voluptuous wench in modern-day slutty attire: I told that eponymous Basket Case to take me with him.

Innocent young drone: I like to help people.

Volptuous wench: Then get me out of my contract for the sequel! I think something bad is about to happen. EEEEE!


...let me count the ways.

1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.

2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.

3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.

4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.

5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.

6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.

7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).

8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing.

9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).

10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.

It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.

BOMB out of ****


I grew up during the time that the music in this movie was popular. What a wonderful time for music and dancing! My only complaint was that I was a little too young to go to the USO and nightclubs. Guess it sounds like I'm living in the past, (I do have wonderful memories)so what's wrong with that?!!? World War 2 was a terrible time, except where music was concerned. Glenn Miller's death was a terrible sadness to us. This movie will be a favorite of mine. Clio Laine was excellent; what a voice! I don't know how I ever missed this movie. My main reason for this commentary is to alert the modern generation to an alternative to Rap and New Age music, which is offensive to me. Please watch this movie and give it a chance!


The film largely focuses on a bullying Robert Taylor as a ruthless buffalo hunter and the people who have to put up with him. Set amidst a hunt for dwindling numbers of buffalo, it portrays the end of a tragic era of senseless slaughter and is full of drama and remorse for both the buffalo and the Native Americans. Taylor is blinded by his hatred of Indians and his naivete that the buffalo herds will never disappear. In one scene, he shoots animal after animal, while in another he murders Indians and then eats the food they had cooking on their fire. Under this ruthless exterior lies an insecure person who is reduced to begging his comrades (Stewart Granger, Lloyd Nolan, and Russ Tamblyn) not to leave him. It's not the most pleasant of films and is weighed down by the drama it creates, leading to a dismal and very fitting conclusion in a blizzard.


A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.

If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 'full-length' films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known.


The Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy fashions natural materials into ephemeral artworks, assembling rocks into egg-shaped cairns, filling riverside rock-pools with fiery flowers and stitching thorns and twigs into intricate web patterns. An original work and a few photographs of his other creations are tucked away in a corner of Southampton art gallery (near where I live), but although I found these pieces intriguing, I only realised the wonder of Goldsworthy's work when I was lucky enough to catch a re-screening of Rivers and Tides.

Thomas Reidelsheimer's film, accompanied by a beautiful instrumental soundtrack by Fred Frith, brings Goldsworthy and his art to life by showing the artist at work. The opening scene captures him fusing icicle fragments into a snake-like thread set atop a tree-stump. Working with his teeth and bare hands, Goldsworthy crafts a beautiful, ephemeral work. Before long this delicate sculpture melts away to nothing in the brilliant Nova Scotian sunlight. This scene is among the most beautiful in the film, but the breadth and inventiveness of Goldsworthy's work is remarkable. Reidelsheimer shows both the successes and the failures, capturing the frustration of pieces that collapse before they are completed as well as the glory of those that shine, even if for just a few hours, minutes or seconds.

Goldsworthy himself provides the narration, speaking slowly but thoughtfully about the themes in his work. He makes plain his need to work with nature, to be alone in it and to further his understanding of it through trying to work with natural materials, even when they seem to be working against him. At times he is down-to-earth and humorous; at other times he struggles for the words to express his purpose  something which is quite understandable when witnessing his astonishing work first hand. The 'Rivers and Tides' of the title become increasingly pertinent as we see the natural materials pass through the artist's hands, flowing from one form to the next. The capture of the creation and dissolution of Goldworthy's work is in itself a striking piece of art.

Although Goldsworthy works with widely varying materials and covers territory across North America and Europe, the presentation of artworks one after the other in this film is exhausting; it gave me the same feeling of fatigue that I get when I spend too long in an art gallery and struggle to take in anything new. A brief interval in which we are introduced to Andy's family and hometown is all that breaks the long succession of his artworks. Nevertheless, Reidelsheimer does a superb job in photographing Goldsworthy and his creations, locating them in their wider environments, from meandering Canadian rivers to rainy Scottish hillsides. Fittingly, the film ends with Goldsworthy casting handfuls of earth and snow into the sky. Fleeting patterns emerge from the dust particles even as they dissipate into the air; this is the purest expression of the beauty to be found in the work of this remarkable artist.


The plot is real horrific, the atmosphere really depressive, unusual for a low-budget production like that, and at least, for a German production. A little bit of Indian spirituality, mystic thriller and slasher movie mixed together. The development of plot and characters are great, the sets very close to reality, without any studio-atmosphere. It could be perfect, but at unfortunately some things were a little bit disappointing, what don't inevitably have to be typically for low-budget movies:

1.) The cast sometimes is not more than average. Almost every actor look like a layman. Some of them do a good, or a very good job, but some are acting like the actors of crappy German court-shows! But I was very, very disappointed of the acting of Mathieu Carrière! His acting ( in a lots of of his older movies his acting was fine ) here was below-average! But that could be the reason, why he today takes part in crappy German soaps or TV-series on private channels.

2.) The dialogs are sometimes on soap-opera-level.

3.) The bad sound made it sometimes very hard to understand, what the characters are saying. I saw it on DVD and was glad to could rewind and to listen it again. It caused by the set ( big halls as in the hospital or with the esoterically group ) and sometimes the strange dialects of the actors!

But all in all, it is an interesting movie, worth to watch it, far beyond the commercially movies, which are often more terrible.


MYSTERY MEN has got to be THE stupidest film I've ever seen, but what a film! I thought it was fabulous, excellent and impressive. It was funny, well-done and nice to see ridiculous Super Heroes for a change! And being able to pull it off! This was great! I'll definitely watch it again!


During the first 3 seasons Fairly Odd Parents was as tasty as hard candy, bright and sweet and addictive. Now it's as tasty as Pepto-Bismol. And unfortunately Pepto-Bismol is what you'll need after viewing the more recent episodes, where all the sweetness has been replaced by insults and violence resulting in no laughs. Cosmo, once one of the more endearing Nick characters, has devolved into an abusive unfunny cretin that the cast of Family Guy wouldn't even want to know. Timmy has become a selfish arrogant jerkwad that Bart Simpson would happily beat the snot out of (and given Timmy's snottiness, that would take a lot of beating). And poor Wanda...a real charmer who's become the victim of her husband and godchild, she's now labeled a 'nag' for caring about the well-being of others. Plus Cosmo's stupidity causes pain to everyone else but he's never punished for it, nor does he learn any lessons. Which pretty much sums up Butch Hartman's attitude towards kids: they're crude, vulgar and not too bright. Thank god this crummy toon has been cancelled, along with Butch Hartman's darling, Danny Phantom. At least Butch got what he deserved - unlike Cosmo.


A Disney movie that dares to do something different should at least be awarded for effort. 'Holes' doesn't make the same mistakes as one would expect from a Disney movie about troubled teenagers put in a camp. For the first time events are not explained in details. The flashback scenes really do serve a purpose and present several mature topics that may surprise the viewer. I must admit that at first I was a bit put off by the seriousness of the movie. But soon I realized that we had to endure those moments to see the beauty of the story. Besides the story this movie also does a good job of questioning some methods that are used in correctional facilities. (One example where Caveman is forbidden to teach Zero to read because they have to dig holes in order to build character,like learning to read won't contribute to that). 'Holes' is a movie that is smart and beautiful. A must watch!


David Lynch's (1999) film of John Roach / Mary Sweeney's story is set in Iowa and Wisconsin some time well before the film's eventual release.

We come into the life of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) late on in life. His medical condition is poor, his life is mostly behind him and he knows it.

This makes what he decides to do, even more remarkable and endearing. He decides (and at every point in the film his own name reverberates through his actions) to put a few things straight.

Alvin is, by this time in his life, a man of great experience but modest means. His daughter Rose (Sissy Spacek) struggles with a speech impediment that makes communication a great effort on the audience's behalf. But it's worth it, because Rose's story cannot help but come out as the film progresses.

This film is the story of a journey. But like all journeys it is a journey in the geographical sense and in the human sense. Early on in the film, we begin to understand that this is an ambitious journey, which no elderly gentleman of Alvin's age should reasonably undertake.

But along the way, we slowly learn how Alvin has so many qualifications which equip him to achieve his unlikely objective. His objective is very simple and straightforward. His brother is ill and likely to die and he wants to visit him. He has had a falling out with him many years ago and they have not spoken in a very long time.

Along the way, Alvin meets many people. The way he behaves towards them and the benefit they get from having known him is the essence of this film. We come to know who Alvin Straight is, from what Alvin Straight does. And at the end of the film, we know who we are .. better.


As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward.

On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only 'full length motion pictures' of the church's I had seen was 'Legacy' and 'My Best Two Years', both which I thought were very well written and preformed.

At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought 'OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears.' Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

See it & believe in it's powerful message!


I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing, especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's, Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs.


I can't come up with appropriate enough words to describe the horror I felt sitting in that cinema watching Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, the director's half-hearted attempt to pay tribute to that classic Bollywood western, Sholay. The biggest problem with Varma's remake is that he doesn't even try to make a credible film. It's evident in every single frame of this movie that Varma's heart is just not in it. What you see on screen is a bad joke at best, a gimmick on the part of the filmmaker, and it pains you to see what little regard he actually shows for a film he claims he's been a fan of all his life.I've seen several bad films over the years, but I can't remember one that's been as much of a torture to sit through as this one. Consider yourself very brave if you're able to survive the entire film, because it tests your patience like few films have before.Varma may borrow his plot and characters from the original film, but his version is trite and hollow and doesn't have any of the spirit and energy of Sholay. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is actually a mockery of that timeless gem because it turns out to be everything that the original film was not - way-over-the-top, too-long-too-boring, and entirely mindless. Much-loved moments from Sholay are parodied by Varma and for that you want to wring his neck. One of the most memorable scenes in Sholay in which Dharmendra as Veeru climbs up the watertank and threatens to jump down to his death is turned around in this film with Ajay Devgan playing Hero, pulling a pistol to his head threatening to shoot himself. How you wish he'd pulled the trigger and spared us all the agony.Not only does Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag fail as a remake of Sholay, it's a pretty bad effort even as a stand-alone film. The eardrum-damaging background score sounds more like someone clanging vessels in the kitchen, and the camera-work alternates between dramatic and head-spinning. Partners in this terrible crime of bringing this ridiculous film to screen are the film's mostly dead-as-wood actors. Sushmita Sen as Devi the widow takes both her role and the film too seriously, punctuating her lines with pauses, staring into camera for effect, and generally performing like her life depends upon it. Mohanlal as Narsimha, struggles with his Hindi dialogue and looks embarrassed to be delivering some of the stupidest lines in his illustrious career. Newcomer Prashant Raj playing Jai-equivalent Raj has no acting chops to speak of and can't strum up any of the brooding intensity Amitabh Bachchan brought to the part in the original film.As Hero, the new-age Veeru, Ajay Devgan is entirely hopeless, failing miserably in his attempts at comedy. But the film's weakest link, easily the most shocking casting decision is Nisha Kothari as Ghunghroo, who steps into the shoes of Hema Malini as Basanti, the endearing airhead from Sholay. Nisha Kothari is not only the worst actress in this country, but possibly the worst actress in this whole wide world, she gives the word annoying a whole new meaning, and she makes you want to slit your wrists every time she's on screen. And then, there is Amitabh Bachchan playing Babban Singh, Ramgopal Varma's version of Hindi cinema's most popular villain Gabbar Singh. The only actor in this ensemble who recognises the film's over-the-top tone and plays along accordingly, Bachchan constructs a menacing character who is a treat to watch. He's meant to be a comic book villain who snarls and sneers and hisses and hams, and he does all of that to good effect. But because he's trapped in such a doomed enterprise, his performance doesn't really help elevate the film in any way.No surprises here, I'm going with zero out of ten and two thumbs down for Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, it one's of those painful movie-watching experiences you wouldn't subject even an enemy to. It's not like Varma hasn't handled a remake before. With Sarkar he gave us a smart, gripping take on The Godfather, and it's a pity he's made this Sholay bhature out of such a much-loved classic. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is his worst career decision ever, it's also a dark spot on his resume he'll be embarrassed of forever. I suspect this film will go down in movie history as Ramgopal Varma Ka Daag.


I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.

Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.

This movie helps set the record straight.


This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la 'War of the Worlds'), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a 'Basic Instinct 3' should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast.


Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.


Jason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.


Maximum risk is quite surprising to a person that has seen more then on of his movies. Director Ringo Lam made an average action-movie, that can be compared with most of the other mid-quality action movies, what is a special predicate to a `Muscles from Brussels`movie. It has a quite classy style, an interesting atmosphere and, last but not least, the beautyful Natasha Henstridge. Even VanDamme doesn´t make you crying by his acting, he does a relatively good job. Of course you may not compare Maximum Risk (oh, what a creative title!) to `Ronin`, but after watching `Knock off` it´s the hell of a good movie... in special standards, of course.


I started to take a critical view on this adaptation within the first few minutes but as a dedicated Jane Austen fan I persevered through to the end... However, this is not a programme I would recommend to someone unfamiliar with her work as I don't think it does the book justice, nor makes particularly entertaining television in its own right. There was something about this adaptation that lacked believability - many of the costumes and even the actors did not have an authentic look and I found the acting to be, at times, poor. There is no doubt that the actors were all very good-looking, but this didn't provide enough variety to create really diverse, memorable characters. It was far too static being set entirely in the same location and missing out Fanny's return home, which is one of the most interesting parts of the story. The best actor was Blake Ritson, who captured the wholesomeness of Edmund very well, and the Crawfords were effectively cast too. I do like Billie Piper as an actress, but this role did not suit her and was much better played by Frances O'Connor in the 1999 version who gave overall a far more subtle and convincing performance. Jane Austen adaptations will always provide a love story to leave you feeling good but unfortunately, this is one of the worst I have seen.


The Seven-Ups is a good and engrossing film. It's packed with credible performances by Scheider, LaBianco and an effective scary performance by Richard Lynch - although most of the characters are card-board cut-out tough guys. Character development does not evolve at all on the screen. The only thing we know is the good guys are the good guys and the bad guys are bad. Deviating from the crime story norm, The Seven-Ups manage to throw Scheider and crew into the middle of a building plot in a unique writing twist. Onsite locations of New York City and an excellent choreographed car chase highlight the film. The only downside of the film is the slightly confusing plot line in the beginning. They give the viewer little evidence that the men being kidnapped are mob related (until later in the film). Had someone blindly started watching the film may be slightly confused on the story. Otherwise, The Seven-Ups is a gritty, testosterone-filled enjoyable time.


Only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be 'unredeemable' I will state the following without repeating the obvious FLAWS plainly stated by some of the other commentators: The 'film' is shot on video (what type of camera I don't know) but the cameraman had it on AUTOFOCUS(!) all the time, so that any slight movement makes it go In and Out of focus. In many of the scenes the actors themselves go OUT of focus for their scenes. This alone screams 'Amateur'.

I also noticed that out in the 'middle of the cornfield', you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights ... loudly.

Also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times 'leads' the actors) when they walk around. It looks like a newscaster with that 'on camera light' that follows the people around like a spotlight. There was no 'credit' for lighting design/DP and I know why. The 'filmmakers' saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note I didn't say 'film'). So be prepared for a SINGLE glaring spotlight as the sole source of 'cinematic lighting' for most of the movie. UGhhh!!!

This is probably the most technically inept production I've ever seen commercially released. I 'bought' this title because I like bad cinema. Usually it's so bad that you can laugh at it. This is just so bad that it's unwatchable. Plan Nine from Outer Space is 'Citizen Kane' in comparison to this title.


H.O.T.S. is a fun film for a trip back to when skin flicks had a more positive fun-filled agenda. They were made simply to titillate and have a few laughs. Everything seems less cynical and jaded. The girls all have natural figures and some are Playboy playmates. The simple plot deals with a group of young women who open a non-sanctioned sorority house to get back at the snooty sorority girls who spurned and insulted them. Instead of the mean spirited tricks of today, most of the hijinks are simply innocent fun. The women are decent actresses for this genre and are mostly very attractive. To keep our attention between the topless scenes, we have mafia henchmen, a stolen bear, a hot air balloon, a funky house mother, and the cheapest robot ever seen. There's even Danny Bonnaducci of the Partridge Family. If you have a sense of humor then let yourself go and enjoy some light entertainment.


78 years ago...the premiere of 'Anna Christie' advertised by the slogan 'Garbo Talks!' The film runs for 16 minutes and the viewers reach the climax of curiosity: Greta enters the bar and gets through a long awaited transfer from silence into sound: a few seconds closing her silent era and, at last, Greta Garbo says a historic line: 'Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side and don't be stingy, baby!'

'Anna Christie' (1930) is the movie by Clarence Brown that introduced a great silent star Greta Garbo to talkies. Nowadays, we can only imagine what serious transfer it was for actors and actresses. The careers of many were bound to end - something we hardly or not at all see at present. And it was no coincidence that it was Clarence Brown who directed the first talkie with the Swedish beauty. Garbo trusted the director after two of his great silent productions, FLESH AND THE DEVIL (1926) and A WOMAN OF AFFAIRS (1928): movies that achieved a smashing success at the box office, both with Garbo in the lead.

But we are in 2008 and that fact about the movie, now purely historical, appears to be of minor importance. The question for today's viewer is not what Garbo's voice sounds like but if the movie is still watchable after these 78 years. In other words, we all strive to answer the question if the movie has stood a test of time. Has it?

When I recently watched it, I came into conclusion that, except for some minor technical aspects, including static camera, 'Anna Christie' is still very entertaining. It's, on the one hand, a wonderful story of a life, of a reality that the young woman faces (being based on Eugene O'Neill's play), and, on the other hand, an artistic manifestation of true magnificence in the field of direction and acting. Let me analyze these two aspects in separate paragraphs.

CONTENT: Chris Christopherson (George F Marion), a heavy drinker, lives a life of a sailor, on a barge. Although his days are filled with sorrows, he is consoled by a letter from his daughter Anna (Garbo) whom he hasn't seen for 15 years. She says that she will come back to him. He starts to change everything for better; however forgets that his daughter is no longer a child lacking experience but a 23 year-old woman who has got through various sorts of things on a farm in Minnessota where she lived and worked. Moreover, he forgets that she has a right to accept another kind of male love in her life... This brief presentation of the content not from the perspective of the main character but the one which is introduced to us sooner than Anna (her father Chris) makes you realize how universal it is. Simply no letter from the whole text that life appears to be has been erased after all these years. Cases discussed here in 1930 are still meaningful and valid...

PERFORMANCES. There are not many characters in the movie, but there are two that really shine in the roles. It is of course Greta Garbo herself who did something extraordinary in her 15 year-long phenomenon, the presence that strongly marked the history of early cinema (something I have already discussed in many of my earlier comments on her films). But here, Garbo is slightly different. I admit that there are moments in this movie when she does not feel very comfortable with her role. That seems to be caused by her new experience with sound in English; however, her performance is, as always, genuine and unique. But that is what everyone has expected from Garbo. The true surprise of the movie for the 1930 viewers and also for us is Marie Dressler as Marthy. She is excellent in her facial expressions, in her accent, in the entire portrayal of a drinking woman who looks at life from the perspective of 'hitting the bottle.' Her best moments include the conversation with Anna Christie in the bar preceded by her hilarious talk with Chris. The rest of the supporting cast are fine yet not great whatsoever (here the German version makes up for it). Particularly Dressler, except for Garbo herself, constitutes an absolutely flawless choice.

If you asked me what I like about 'Anna Christie' nowadays, that's what I would tell you: it's a classic movie. However, there is one more thing that I must mention at the end. It is humor, wonderful wit that is noticeable throughout. Although the content is quite serious and 'Anna Christie' in no way carries a comedian spirit (the only Garbo's comedy was NINOTCHKA), there are such moments when you will split your sides. Don't skip, for instance, Anna and Matt's visit in the fun park, particularly at the restaurant where he orders milk for her thinking how virtuous and innocent she is, beer for himself and where suddenly Marthy joins them by chance...

'Anna Christie' is a perfect movie for classic buffs and a must see for all at least a bit interested in the true magnificence of performance. If you are fed up with many of those modern starlets, seek such movies out and you shall be satisfied. Very worth your search!

Skaal Greta Garbo! Skaal Marie Dressler! Let us drink a toast to the great jobs you did in the movie! Skaal after all these years when wine tastes much better and your spirits are with us in a different sense...


Filmed just after the war, this story was made in order to highlight Anglo-American relations after the war. It ended up receiving the honour of being the first Royal Premiere after WWII.

Remarkably the film tangles together the Royal Air Force, Sigmund Freud Psychology, the Founding fathers of America and various others up the long stairs (special effects in its infancy) and beyond the heavenly gates without losing any of its integrity.

Although sounding absurd, this clever script leads and dances the viewer between heaven and earth with the skill of a mountain goat and a presents a charming ease rarely matched in cinema since.

Be prepared to have your heart warmed by this sweet, innocent and charming love story. Roger Livesey acts like a man possessed to steal the show!!!!

British Cinema should cry when it remembers how good it used to be in those early post war years.


No music. No stupid masala. A reasonably realistic portrayal of the police system in India and based on a real 'encounter' specialist in India, Daya Nayak. That is Ab Tak 56 (56 symbolises how many criminals the lead 'Sadhu Agashe' has killed' - well you already know that bit)Brilliance exudes Nan Patekar in the role as a relaxed and calculating Indian cop. THe one liners are just hilarious. The plot though slightly predictable on review, is intriguing all the same. Another one of the films from Ram Gopal Vermas The Factory. Movies which are either decent or really good, Ab Tak CHappan meanders close to very good. But yet remains one of the Top 70 films released from India, commercial and artsy included.

What is great is the story telling is relaxed and showcases finally (in an Indian flick) how the police network works. The cast is really damn good but seriously the one liners are funny as hell (though i dont know if the subtitled version will appear as funny) The producers are trying for a Cannes release, which is interesting. Made by debut director Shamit Aman (i think thats his name).

Again 55 y.o. Nana Patekar is brilliant away from his silly shouting roles of the past, just shows what a good director can do with a good actor. Really good stuff. If you are interested in Indian movies and are disgusted by the nonsense some of our guys dish out then this is definitely a relief.

Again Patekar is the guy who happilly carries the movie on his shoulders and epitomises the style of the movie- relaxed, funny, intelligent and calculating. Good dialoges, good acting, nice direction all in all Great stuff. Recommendations: Gangaajal, Ram Gopal Verma's Company (both Indian flicks)


But even caricatures need a plausible plot line. I suppose in 1934 some part of that audience long ago would enjoy this tepid farce. It doesn't age well. It does give Nat Pendelton and Zasu Pitts experienced and expert support players a shot at leading roles. Pendelton, who is featured prominently in the Thin Man series tries his best but is over matched by witless plot. With the backdrop being a stage play with gangsters its not exactly original material. Movie's saving grace is the always excellent Edward Everett Horton in a wasted performance. But don't waste your time watching Everett in this film. I would encourage anyone to watch him in his effort in Holiday, with Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Same era 1936, but much better script and storyline. Better gags and needless to say star power as well.


As Peckinpah did with STRAW DOGS, and Kubrick with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, director John Boorman delivers an effective film about Man's violent side in DELIVERANCE, arguably a definitive horror film of the 1970s. Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox portray four Atlanta businessmen who decide to take a canoe trip down the wild Cahulawassee River in northern Georgia before it is dammed up into what Reynolds calls 'one big, dead lake.'

But the local mountain folk take a painfully obvious dim view of these 'city boys' carousing through their woods. And the following day, continuing on down the river, Beatty and Voight are accosted and sexually assaulted (the film's infamous 'SQUEAL!' sequence) by two vicious mountain men (Bill McKinney, Herbert 'Cowboy' Coward). Thus, what started out as nothing more than a lark through the Appalachians has now turned into a nightmare in which our four protagonists come to see the thin line that exists between what we think of as civilization and what we think of as barbarism.

James Dickey adapted the screenplay from his own best-selling book, and the result is an often gripping and disturbing shocker. Often known for its 'SQUEAL!' and 'Dueling Banjos' sequences, DELIVERANCE is also quite a pulse-pounding ordeal, with the four leading men superb in their roles, and McKinney and Coward making for two of the most frightening villains of all times. A must-see film for those willing to take a chance.


Several things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.

But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of cleché and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.

Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it.


I enjoyed Still Crazy more than any film I have seen in years. A successful band from the 70's decide to give it another try. They start by playing some gigs in some seedy European venues, with hilarious results. The music is fantastic, the script and acting are terrific. The characters are spot on, especially the lead singer with the high heavy metal voice, makeup and personality problems. The concert at the end was unreal. Go and see it, preferably in a cinema with a good sound system :)


Along with the 'Maratonci trce pocasni krug' from the same director, one of the masterpieces of ex-Yugoslavia comedies. If you want to understand Serbian mentality, you must see this movie. And if you want to see several of ex-Yugoslav great actors at the same time, this is a opportunity.


I was lucky enough to have seen this on a whim during a film festival and was smacked so hard with what I saw I returned the next night for its second of three screenings. A funny, savage and sharp-toothed attack on every aspect of mainstream entertainment passively swallowed without tasting by the lowest-common-denominator target audience waged by a lone-avenger journalist who slowly takes in members for his guerilla-war on predictability is what the movie's all about, and is executed in such an unpredictable and refreshing way that you're left after the credits roll with hope renewed, and excited that original films can still be made. Anyone frustrated with unfulfilled expectations for something to light up their imaginations would do well to hunt (and I do mean hunt) this scarcely-seen item down. For fans of Fight Club and any Charlie Kaufman film, and required viewing for anyone who avoids multiplexes like a rabid dog.


Rosario Dawson stars as a girl who is date raped and then begins a decent into darkness until given a chance at revenge. While its clear why Dawson took the role, its a chance to show her acting chops and to make a small independent, decidedly un-Hollywood film, its also clear that aside from stunning good looks, Dawson seems out of place in the role. Forgive me I simply couldn't find her. Thats not a mistake, thats how I felt, I had no idea where she was. Yes I know she's on the screen but even though I spent the better part of two hours looking at her she left no impression on me whats so ever. I blame the script for this since other than the ending, not a whole heck of a lot that happened on screen seemed to make any real sense. The people seemed to be more posture than real and what happens didn't seem to fit together. Forgive me for being vague but nothing in this film, other than the end (which I would love to talk about but can't cause it would spoil it), and the image of Rosario Dawson as nothing more than an image, stayed with me.What can I say, this may click with you, it may not, for me it's time I can't get back. For Rosario Dawson fans only, though be warned there's several real reasons why this is NC17. (And Rosario- please, you're a better actress, pick better scripts)


1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.


In my opinion, the movie was laughable--bad dialogue. Whoever wrote the script--please keep your day job. It's definitely NO Godfather or Goodfellas. It's good to be on the otherside of the table--poor choice of words. Some of the characters were clowns. But what do you expect from a low budget movie with no name actors.


John Candy's Performance in Once Upon A Crime is possibly his best ever. It's been My Favourite Movie since it came out. I Spent 5 Years searching for it. That's How Good It Is. If You Disagree, well, that's your opinion. Enjoy The Movie.


The movie begins with much voice-over, a bad sign. Then it just slides downhill with silly and intelligence-insulting scenes involving trappers and Indians. But, it reaches new and impressive lows when all the merry mountain men square dance with each other in a high alpine meadow. Meanwhile, the happy-go-lucky Indians sit around watching them. It's a better scene than the dancing cowboys in 'Blazing Saddles'. There is a minor flaw in this comparison; 'Across the Wide Missouri' is not a comedy.


Actually, I never bought into the metal was satanic and stuff, but this movie kind of played on that idea. Though certainly not a movie to take seriously or to rate really high, it does serve its purpose in that it entertains while it is playing. The story has a metal band burned to death in their hotel, one of their fans has a dream to this effect and said band starts to go on a kill spree from beyond the grave. So yes, a bit of 'Nightmare on Elm Street' plot going on here. Granted Freddy never molested a girl in a car before. There was another movie featuring a heavy metal band in it, but it was very different in how it played out as it had a band that kind of took over a town of kids and made them crazy. This one simply has the one fan of the band kind of helping the killer spirit at first then trying to stop him. Nothing to gruesome in it as I do not remember all that many gory kills. Quite frankly, the scene I do remember most is the scene of the girl wearing the headphones and then being molested by some creature incarnation of the band. Nothing great, but a nice time filler.


If you made a genre flick in the late 80s, you basically had a 50/50 chance it would either be set underwater or in a prison (sadly, we never got an underwater prison flick). Framed for murder by mafia boss Moretti (Anthony Franciosa), Derek Keillor (Dennis Cole) ends up on death row, right alongside the mob boss' brother Frankie (Frank Sarcinello Jr.). But this is the least of Derek's problems as rogue government agent (and mob stoolie) Col. Burgess (John Saxon, who also directs) is using the prison as a testing ground for a new supervirus. This is the only flick Saxon directed during his storied career. For a guy who has worked with tons of directors, it appears the only ones he picked up any tips from were the cheap-o Italian ones. Sure, it is low budget, but that can't excuse the stilted staging, shooting gaffes, or clumsy exposition in the first 15 minutes. To his credit, Saxon did make it slightly gory and he works in a hilarious nude scene (our lead falls asleep during a prison riot only to fantasize about a female scientist). Cole, who looks like a more rugged Jan-Michael Vincent, is decent as the stoic lead and Franciosa - sporting a really bad rug - gives it his all as the cliché mob boss. The end takes place at Marty McKee's favorite location, Bronson Canyon. Retromedia released this on DVD as ZOMBIE DEATH HOUSE.


i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even 'tragical'), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it´s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i´m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you´re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won´t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.

'mr. smith' from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with 'strange' appetites here, but that´s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy.....


Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him 'selfish jerk'. When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks  Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.

A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of 'While She Was Out' and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): 'Enquanto Ela Está Fora' ('While She Was Out')


A woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town, and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo, both zombie related. But perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too...

The Zombie Chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact I must confess, so bad was it I fast forwarded through most of the garbage. And there was a lot of that, believe me. It runs for just 69 minutes, and there is still tons of filler. You get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups, plenty of dull kissy-kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed, tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors.

As for the title characters, they barely even have a footnote in the film. Why, you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature! Though, considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other 'delights'), maybe that's a blessing in disguise.

And to top it all off, it looks likes it's been filmed on someone's mobile phone for broadcast on Youtube. Jerky camera-work, scratches on the print, flickering lights... I had to rub my eyes when I realised it was made in 2001, and not 1971. Even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date!

If you think I'm not qualified to do a review of Chronicles having not seen the whole film, then go ahead. YOU try sitting through it, I betcha you won't even make it to the first appearance of the blue-smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. It is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it, and honestly you'll get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your DVD player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. In fact, don't for surprised if it packs it's bags and leaves in the morning, leaving you doomed to watch VHS tapes for the rest of your life. You have been warned... 0/10

P.S What kind of 18-rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene?! See, the movie can't even get that part right...


First time I ever saw this was at a friends house. It ended up in his parents hands by a fluke; some videostore/bicycle repair shop!! went bankrupt and treats like this was up for grabs. We saw it two times in a row and almost wet are pants how hard we laughed.

I've seen historical documents like Ninja Mission and Plan 9 from Outer Space, and they still remain good runners-up in comparison to this one.

Almost 15 years after first contact it is now considered the best cult movie of all times (in my circles); I've showed it to all my friends... We now have a tradition of searching for movies in the same category: the un-rateable one.

It can't be explained or reviewed in any normal way because every scene, every take, every move, contains at least one mistake regarding editing, dialouge, directing etc.

For any cult-movie buff this is the ultimate prize, the gem of all gems.

Raiting: As for craft it can't be rated, because it would even be an insult to homemade videos of birthdays and weddings.

As for pure amusement it is the funniest movie I have ever seen; funnier than any comedy ever made past or present. Anything less than a 10/10 should be regarded as an insult to good sense of hum our.


I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.


What can I say about this movie except that it is great fun!

John Cusack plays Hoops McCann a recent High School graduate who has two choices, learn to take up the family business of street sweeping or spend the summer at Nantucket with his pal George Calamari (played hilariously by Joel Murray) and his zany friends.

When I say zany, believe me, it can't get much zanier than the Stork brothers, Egg (Bobcat Goldthwait) and Clay (Tom Villard) and Ack Ack Raymond (Curtis Armstrong). Throw in a little girl named Squid and her weirdo mutt and a great performance by Demi Moore and you have the makings of a split your sides laughing, movie.

The laughs flow freely in this movie and the story line, though the typical good versus bad and good conquers, is great with the twist of a regatta as the showdown.

I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes loads of laughs and a feel good time. If you like to thoroughly *enjoy* your movies, then you can't miss One Crazy Summer!


On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin / The Battleship Potemkin.'

The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading 'KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;' close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably 'borrowed' by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin.

However, the film itself is best analysed  not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes  but as a single film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose side we should be sympathetic towards.

The film is often referred to as 'propaganda,' and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution. It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared more admirably overseas.

The film also proved a successful vehicle for Eisenstein to test his theories of 'montage.' Through quick-cut editing, and distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course, during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such scenes.

One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things, there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement.


This is probably the most irritating show I have ever seen in my entire life. It is indescribably the most annoying and idiotic show I have ever seen. Everything about it is just bad.

Synopsis: Different situation comes up each week for the parent to handle their kids.

I could not understand, what kind of idiot would produce this mess in the first place not to mention several season. The script is bad, very bad  it contains both cheesiness and unethical joke that you normally see in rated R or NC-17 movie. Especially for the young boy character where all he does is pleasuring himself, is that what one called family show humor? The casting is also horrible, cause all you see is a really really BAD Actors, period.

Final Word: This Show is a real torture!! This show provides an image of how irresponsible parent can be (using power wrongly rather than understanding). It is zillion times away from reality. Listen to Kenny G would be a god sends compare to this. Watching washing machine twirling around wouldn't hurt your eyes as much as this show.

Rating: 0/10 (Grade: Z)

Note: The Show Is So Bad That Even Mother Of The Cast Pull Her Daughter Out Of The Show.


This movie reminds me of 'Irréversible (2002)', another art-work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. I did not like the movie but I cannot say that it is a bad movie, it is just special. I reminds me also of 'Camping Cosmos (1996)' where a bunch of low-class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in Belgium. The same description of people living together, side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. I also thought about the books by the French writer Emile Zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. I did not like the movie and I also do not like the people who are in it. They all seem so vulgar, without any basic good taste. One could ask the question why do they live, they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce, forced to live against their will. Or you could say: the hell is on this world.


I first came across this film when I read a book (written in the 1970s) about the career of Mitchell Leisin. I have to admit that over the years I have watched many of his films and find his best work really high quality. SWING HIGH, SWING LOW was supposed to be one of his best. While it did not bore me, it did not impress me as much as HOLD BACK THE DAWN, DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY, KITTY, or even GOLDEN EARINGS. I suspect it just dates too much now to be well liked.

Working at Paramount Leisin had a problem in those films that he did which were musicals. Most of the scores he worked with were fairly mediocre. It's true that twice standards appeared in his films, but they were really rare cases: 'Cocktales for Two' appeared in MURDER AT THE VANITIES, and 'Mona Lisa' came out of CAPTAIN CAREY, U.S.A. But the rest of the score for MURDER AT THE VANITIES was forgettable. 'Mona Lisa' was the only tune in CAPTAIN CAREY. It shouldn't have been this way - Leisin's studio had Rogers and Hart working for it in the early 1930s. Why couldn't he have been assigned to a project with them? The score for SWING HIGH, SWING LOW, is pleasant but forgettable. Unfortunately, the movie is centered in the entertainment world, as Fred Macmurray demonstrates great talents as a trumpet player (he even works Carole Lombard into his act by looping his arms around her when he blows his trumpet). The song (sung by Lombard) about how her lover's playing thrills her, is important to the plot. It works in the film, but it would have been better if the song was more memorable.

There is a picaresque style to the film - it begins on an ocean liner that Lombard works on, as a manicurist. She is constantly being bullied by her boss Franklin Pangborn (the ship's barber). Then the ship is entering into the Panama Canal, and we see MacMurray as a soldier, who's enlistment is ending shortly. Their first scene together has a nice Leisin touch in it: MacMurray is talking to Lombard, she on the deck of the boat and he on the edge of the wall of the lock. Nice way to keep the action going while the dialog hits a dull bit.

The film follows the rise and fall of the Skid Johnson (MacMurray) as he meets Lombard, and begins his reputation as a trumpet player, but meets the 'other woman' in the film, Dorothy Lamore. The best moments in the film deal with the collapse of the relationship with Lombard, and his collapse as a jazz trumpeter (his appearance and need for alcohol is very untypical for a MacMurray character - even his darker figures like Walter Neff or Mr. Sheldrake or the naval officer who pushes the Caine Mutiny did not demonstrate a reliance on alcohol.

Lombard is good as the woman loved but wronged by MacMurray. Lamore has little to really do - possibly the film had more scenes with her in it, but one stands out is her attempt to get MacMurray onto the wagon again. In his opening bit Pangborn is fine. Rarely noticed in films, small part actor Carl Judels is effective as a fair weather fan/friend of MacMurray, who drops him as he goes under (though he gives him a hand-out).

Charles Butterworth is as trivial in this film as usual, but he does have one moment when he looks sheepishly at his hands on the keyboard of a piano in the rooms he, his girlfriend, MacMurray, and Lombard share - his red faced appearance is due to embarrassment about a lie that MacMurray is insisting is true. It was a nice, subtle moment. If only his subtlety had been in his acting rather than his moments of diffident humor.


(r#88) Brilliant, very entertaining show with spectacular effects. Any fan of these prehistoric reptiles has to see this. The CGI blends in extremely well with the environment and it's just plain fun to watch these giants walk about their daily business as casually as on Discovery Channel. This show was a stroke of genius and it blows its followers 'Walking with beasts' and 'The future is wild' out of the water.

The greatest episode was definitely the last, where we got to watch the final days of the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the meteor strike that became their doom. This stuff is almost too awesome for television. How about a theatrical release? I would pay anything to see these dinos in the cinema.

If you're in the mood for a show that manages to be spectacular, engaging and educational at the same time, this is for you. Dinosaurs have never been cooler.


Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).

However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.

Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.

The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.

The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.

Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.


'The 4th Floor' is a decidedly mediocre film starring Juliette Lewis as a young interior designer with a heck of a problem neighbor. Jane (Lewis) has recently inherited a terrific 5th floor apartment from her grandmother, and per agreement with the landlord, gets a ridiculously low renting rate. Her boyfriend (William Hurt as a creepy weather man) wants her to move in with him, but she wants her own space. So she moves in, and weird stuff starts happening, and because this is a B-grade horror flick, there's a dumb, not-to-be-found-in-reality reason why. As the none-too-intriguing Jane keeps trying to tell others- her boyfriend, the police, coworkers- what's going on, everybody thinks she's losing it. So, of course, she has to face the problem- the lunatic living right below her- alone. Neither scary nor interesting, The movie's single saving grace is Lewis. She's a very fine actress but poorly used here, which is not to say she isn't the best thing about this flick- because she is. She has feral charisma and holds the screen better than a dozen of the silicone bimbos that routinely populate this type of movie. This type of movie, though, is not worthy of her- which is ironic, given that she's probably the only reason anyone would see it.


A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.

The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7.


To those who have not followed the Anne Marie Fahey Murder case. You are missing out one of the saddest yet complicated murder of all. The murderer is popular Delaware attorney, Tom Capano and the victim is the Delaware Governor's Scheduling Secretary, Anne Marie Fahey. Their relationship was a well-kept secret until her disappearance and murder. She wanted to leave him but he just wouldn't let her go so easily. On the other hand, he had a mistress and a wife and four daughters. Where did he find the time to have two mistresses and a domestic family life? Besides, the case is extremely complicated and fascinating for a four hour mini series. While the actress who plays Ms. Fahey does a fine job, she does not have her dark long hair. His other mistress is definitely more attractive than the actual woman. Mark Harmon is better looking and does an Emmy award winning performance as Tom Capano. It would be better with actual Delaware and Philadelphia locations. With Ann Rule's executive producing, she adds accuracy to Anne Marie's characteristic of organization and her personal battle with an eating disorder. These bits of information might be overlooked by any other executive producer or director. If you have not read the book, it is well worth it. Ann Rule is a fascinating storyteller of true crime. It is ironic that Mark Harmon plays Tom Capano. He also played Ann Rule's former friend and subject, Ted Bundy in an another book adaptation many years ago. He was brilliant then and now. He does an above average job with an amazing story. Even President CLinton offered his assistance in the Anne Marie Fahey case. And now, the former Governor Tom Carper is now the United States Senator for Delaware who defeated longtime, popular incumbent Senator Richard Roth in the November 2000 election. IF you don't think the movie is interesting, then the read Rule's book.


This movie is very modern and forward. It is about 75% in English. It is aimed at English-speaking multiplex-going young audience. Basic plot is similar to DDLJ. Acting is below average.

Unfortunately they are portraying a wrong picture and setting a bad example for the youngsters. Tanisha is shown drinking from a bottle, or taking shots of tequila about 5-6 times in the movie. The director does not even acknowledge she is an alcoholic and has a drinking problem. All through the movie she only wears bikini tops whether she is at work, at a beach or at a wedding. The heroine of the movie doing this makes the youngsters feel this behaviour is acceptable.

The less that is said about failure of Uday Chopra doing Shahrukh Khan's DDLJ role of arrogant girl-chaser, the better. The movie is about equality of sexes. But equality should not be about making the same mistakes, instead about doing the right to do the right thing. If men have been shown as chronic Casanovas in movies, does not mean women should also portray same behaviour.

Even though the movie is made in light-hearted fun spirit, it promotes so many wrong social notions in the name of being forward, that 'fun' part of the movie makes no impact. Not even in Canada women dress like this, or guys behave like they have shown in the movie. It is certainly not a reflection of Indian society or even Canadian society. Perhaps they should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating, 'All characters and events in the movie are imaginary and do not reflect the actual culture of the cities and countries mentioned in the film.' The only good thing about this movie is the length, 1.5 hrs, thank god.


It was an interesting and entertaining movie well worth watching. The acting was decent but it may be out of date for some people. I was glad to see cast members of such highly acclaimed movies as 'Raging Bull' and 'Goodfellas' in this movie A great and dramatic ending and pretty good writing.


After five years in prison, Tony le Stéphanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest friends Jo (Carl Möhner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' Âge d' Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar (Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable ring to his mistress.

'Du Rififi Chez les Hommes' is a magnificent film-noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility, supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of favorite movies ever. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): 'Rififi'


First I want to clarify that the average user's inability to appreciate imagination is appalling. What makes this show so unique is the hyper-reality it creates. You don't need to know why Ned can bring people back from the dead, or why it can only be for a minute. Where has the wonderment of childhood whimsical tales gone, much like A Wrinkle in Time.

I say it is refreshingly original because it is a polar opposite to the masses of lay-it-all-out television that leaves no room for imagination or wonder.

It's nice to add a bit of escapism to the television experience.

The hyper-reality is my favorite aspect of the show. The 1950's-esque setting, the innocent and rare characters, and the scenery and physical setting which are not meant to be taken as pure reality.

This show masks the morbid nature of death, while others embrace it. While entertaining, other television shows have taken a back shelf to this series. It truly has restored a sense of curiosity, imagination and wonder to television.

Pushing Daisies quickly made it to the top of my list.


The third and last part of the Bourne trilogy (duh), is lacking a bit in the story department, but covers it with extensive action scenes! Twi in particular take up quite some of the running time and make this movie better.

The director and star (Damon) themselves agreed that it was difficult to find a story for the last part, because the end of the second movie was quite ... advanced story-wise. How they got around that? The action scenes, for once, but they did another thing too, which I can't reveal, because that would be a spoiler. But if you watch the movie, than you'll notice it! Funnily enough I read, that this adaptation of the Bourne books is the least accurate of all three films .. if that means anything to you :o)


Kennan Ivory Wayans was so funny in Low Down Dirty Shame that I had to see this one and it was one of the worst he has done and Steven Seagal didn't help much. It starts off with some odd religious killings that don't make much sense to Jim Campbell (Keenan). He is surprised to see a new partner waiting for him to work by his side to crack the case but Jack Cole doesn't seem to be who everyone thinks he is until Jack's ex wife is killed in one of those ritual killings that end up making him the suspect as well. It's the same thing as all of his other movies: Smoke past, CIA involvement and now trying to be a normal cop. Why does Steven dress up like he is from a Western movie? And the prayer beeds on top of that make things a little confusing.


What we have here is a classic case of TOO much patriotism. This is what happens when you live in a small country with very little (next to none, even) cinema history. Whenever somebody does come up with a slightly more ambitious film project  other than the usual dramas about struggling farmer families or long feature slapstick movies of local comedians  everybody feels obliged to love it and even responsible to spread favorable reviews across the countries' borders. This is especially the case when the writer/director of this particular film is already a nation's sweetheart, because he's also the founder and lead singer of a popular rock band. 'Any Way The Wind Blows' is by no means a bad film, but it's definitely overrated (if that is even possible within the boundaries of a small country) and has absolutely nothing new or even remotely original to offer. This is basically the Flemish version of classic movies such as 'Short Cuts' and 'Magnolia' and illustrates a mosaic of characters whose daily lives initially appear to be unrelated but eventually come together in the end. The only thing that seems to unite the eight protagonists at first is the city of Antwerp, where they all live and work, but gradually the deeper relationships between them become transparent and near the climax they all gather for a party. The main problem with 'Any Way The Wind Blows', at least according to yours truly, lies with the characters. They really are random, uninteresting and honestly don't experience anything that could be considered out of the ordinary. It was presumably writer/director Tom Barman's intention to depict the average & regular inhabitant of Antwerp but then, seriously, what is the point? One of the characters gets fired from his film projectionist job, another one is a failed novelist struggling with a marriage crisis, two siblings recently lost their father and the most 'mysterious' one of them all is followed by the wind wherever he goes. There are a couple of more characters regularly walking through the screen, but they're even less worth mentioning. These people simply drivel on and on about very random topics (like life in the 80's, dates and each other's bowel motions) and philosophy about matters nobody cares about. Some of the dialogs do evoke mild chuckles, especially the interactions between the two twenty-something guys from Ghent, but still nothing extraordinary or even memorable. The film actually works best as a touristy video to promote the city of Antwerp and as an extended & versatile music documentary. There are several stylish & nifty sightseeing images of Antwerp and there's always beautiful music playing, whether really loud or subtly in the background. Generally speaking 'Any Way The Wind Blows' is a competently made and stylish effort, but too mundane and slightly boring, and I honestly wonder most of its fans would even had bothered to watch if it weren't a Flemish production.


Val Kilmer, solid performance. Dylan McDermott, solid performance. Josh Lucas, solid performance. Three very engaging actors giving decent performances. The problem is, who cares about the plot? John Holmes. Infamous for his well-endowments, a drug addict, and a guy who, despite contracting AIDS, continued to make adult films, just does not make an intriguing character.

The story surrounds the events leading up to and the aftermath of a vicious mass murder that occurred in the late 80's in Los Angelos to which Holmes was linked, arrested and charged with murder, and who ultimately was acquitted. Just like in the case of O.J., the guilt factor, regardless of the outcome, ranged quite high in the 'He did it' zone.

There is no one to sympathize with in this film, as everyone is a self-serving criminal. There is just nothing remotely interesting here.


I saw Bandit Queen in 2005, over a decade after it was made amidst widespread controversy in India. The language, the stark treatment and the natural acting (by a relatively unknown cast for that time) might have been even more shocking at that time for an Indian populace more familiar with fantasy cinema. The film, the cast, and Shekhar Kapoor, deserve accolades for the breakthrough effort.

The plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after being released from prison in 1994.

The film scores on several counts. The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better, though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails, and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film.

There are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of Madhya Pradesh then.

But these are small chinks in this eminently well-made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late 80s - Mr India.


Really enjoyed Manna From Heaven. If you liked My Big Fat Greek Wedding you will like this too! Once the story line is set it begins to keep you guessing the outcome. I think we'll be hearing more from Five Sisters Productions. I know I'll be watching for their next movie.


I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.


I had watched this film from Ralph Bakshi (Wizards, Hey Good Lookin'), one night ago on www.afrovideo.org, and I didn't see anything racial (I am not stupid), I do admit the character designs are a bit crude and unaccpectable today, but I think it's a satire and a very,very urban retelling of the old Uncle Remus stories that the Black American culture, created right down to the main characters and the blatant nod to 'The Tar Baby' and 'The Briar Patch.' These aren't bigoted stories, mind you, but cultural icons created by Black Americans, and me being a white woman read and love those stories. And I also found it an interesting time-capsule view on the black culture in Harlem, New York in the 70's.

Well to get to the nitty-gritty of this film: This film is a live-action/animated film, which begins in live-action with a fellow named Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy the animated story of Brother Rabbit, a young newcomer to the big city who quickly rises from obscurity to rule over all of Harlem; you know, to me Rabbit,Bear and Fox are animal versions of Randy,Sampson and the Preacherman. An abstract juxtaposition of stylized animation and live action footage, the film is a graphic and condemnatory satire of stereotypes prevalent in the 70s  racial, ethnic, and otherwise.

So anyway, it is another GOOD Bakshi movie; and should we sweep films like this under the rug? pretend they never exist? hmmm...I think that would be a shame; I think we should watch these films entacted, and learn about what goes on back then, just how far we come since then.


This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.

If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..

Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see


Unless you are geeky film student who has to see everything, this film will not only be a waste of your time and money and a huge disappointment, but it will also make you angry beyond belief.

There might be a story worth telling somewhere inside, but Hopkins decided to hide it and encode under so many incessant chaotic layers of apparently random audio video microcuts, making the viewer's patience run thin after a very short while.

Why would someone like Hopkins choose such a heavy, most difficult and highly unstable project as his first script, first score and third film can by anyones guess. Maybe he played with it in his mind for such a long time until it became unrecognizable as what it became, not even for himself. The result proves that he has by far not enough experience or skill to achieve the desired result.

Even the weirdest Carpenter and Lynch films, to name just two uncoventional filmmakers, had 90% more coherence, 95% less characters and 99% more story flow.

Sir Anthony you aimed for the stars, but unfortunately missed by a couple of light years. Please stick to acting, in that department you are a unequaled giant and nobody should ask more from you, not even yourself!


Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.

When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.

While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.

Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.


You may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace.


As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE.

I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =)


This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).

Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.

For some reason the director was unable to make the 'haunted' house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.

Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.

Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!


They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.

That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.

For rest of review please visit http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above.


No plot, crappy acting, and pointless gore....

This is supposed to be a horror movie? There's no fear, or suspense, just BOOM BANG GORE, then done. Some kinda Marines are in the desert for some weird, crappy reason and they get hunted down by those mutated beasts from the first movie, which was good, and should have been left it at that.

This is just another excuse for money, and use of pointless violence, just like the 'Saw' sequels. They know no matter how pointless the plot is, and the more gore they can add, people will see it. I miss good suspenseful horror movies. Come on Hollywood, you can do much, much better.


I just saw this movie for the second time with my 8-year-old daughter and I remembered why we liked it the first time. All these people who say it is bad are too uptight and critical! It is simply an entertaining little movie, it's not supposed to change the world. I thought all the actors did a great job with their characters. (Except for Jeremy Jordan as Guy--he was a maggot who looked seriously in need of soap and shampoo. If HE is supposed to be the hot guy in their school, then they've got slim pickins'.) But I digress--Drew Barrymore was delightful, as usual, and David Arquette was even enjoyable, and I usually can't stomach him, if only because of those STUPID AT&T commercials! Molly Shannon is always entertaining, and Leelee Sobieski did a great job as a tortured brain. Some parts were actually painful to watch, reminding me of high school. Even though I thankfully didn't get made fun of, it made my heart ache for those who do. Movies like this are actually good for children to see--my daughter made several observations about the cruelty of some of the students and how wrong it was. This movie is appropriate for anyone and a good way to while away 2 hours. If there's ever a time you want to see a lighthearted little movie with a happy ending where you don't have to think very much, then this is definitely a consideration.


Not much to say other than plenty of Wire-fu and supposed Sholin monks ego-tripping about Kung-fu and caricature Japanese plotting to take over China. All of this would not be so bad if not for the utterly fake Japanese sword fighting. If you watched a Samurai movie or two you can tell that the 'Japanese' fighting in the movie is simply the same 'Kung-fu' (Really circus acrobats) stunt men doing the same things except with a Japanese sword. However, there are a couple of fun moments such as when a Japanese woman Ninja tears off her clothes in mid-flight to disarm a monk and captures him with a fishing net. Storywise, there seems to be a bit of schizophrenia as far as whether the Japanese should be shown as completely despicable or if there could be exceptions. The 'Japanese' protagonist is shown as largely honourable but not beyond unwarranted cruelty such as when he murders a sedated monk so that he may have his duel. Quite disappointing with a very silly ending. Does not for a moment evoke even the semblance of the idea of an epic battle.