I did not know for some time in my youth all that could in general be known about this film however the ways of making a film was not what in fact drew my attention, what made this motion picture one the most liked films even to this very day that I have ever seen was of the Heroism,bravery and the Honor to have served in Her Majestys Service.This film is not always what it seems and that is perhaps as it should be,however I cant say enough for the courage exhibited by Sgt.Cutter in defense of The Uniform that he too would of sacrificed his life to save from peril of the sort that they and the troop were threatened with the emergence of this thugee group.

To be certain Sgt. Cutter is the kind of individual you might suggest something about and then you watch this unequivocal belief not only in each other but in her Majesty the Queen of England.I think for all of his lust for money and the such that that character was great.A reckless brave courageous soldier who did not know fear.I think Grant was excellent in this role,truly a very capable rendering made compelling by the uniform that he wore.I never felt Ballantine was a shoe-in ,in fact there was so much confidence in there assumptions that you might be well not to look to close because it is still only a picture.What do I mean?This picture is still only a motion picture and like the times in which these events take place as well as when the picture was actually made provide a look at how things were done then and what or why there are so many different opinions as to this motion picture will distract your attention.Both Ballantine and MaChesney are equal in there dedication with both men from time to time providing a unflinching daring as to there jobs as men in the service of Her Majesty.These three seem to bring things off rather well and I believe it is a useful,even enjoyable interlude when Ballantine has a date with destiny or so it would seem only to have fate as you would have it intervene.Is it Believable?I don't know.I think it is very fitting when the company having escaped the clutches of death in Tantrapur and they are dragging there tails as they are approaching the main gates to the Regiments Post when Ballantine allows the other two to know that he is leaving the service,and getting married and going into the tea business.MaChesney says he could sign up for another 9 years.It will make a man out of him.I like that sentiment.

I don't think there is any doubt as to just what it means to have brave dependable courageous soldiers representing your very best interests.Where does this end,in fact it may never end.Those interests are so well placed as to what is important in this world that I enjoy this picture today as much as perhaps I enjoyed the picture when I was ten years old.I had never known about the truthfulness of this film up to recently when I went into history and found the information about Kali.There is quite a good deal to learn however once all is said and done about the historical significance of the Goddess of Kali,this motion picture takes on a quality that I refer to as intelligence.This is a very honest attempt to convey a belief in what is being attempted.I think this is an excellent film.George Stevens directed.

There is a few items to be aware of I don't think all the information will jive with history however when the Journalist is addressed as Mr.Kipling things can get very emotional because all the rest are characters but this is Rudyard Kipling?George Stevens went over the top to convey a time and a time before when these events actually occurred.The information is honest,compelling and it will not only draw you in but you will need to understand about why we so love Gunga Din.There is in the distance the Black Watch is out in front and they are approaching a most certain peril and possible defeat unless the troop can be warned.Sgt.Cutter is seriously wounded and Ballantine as well as MaChesney are restrained.Din having a deep wound at the base of his back as the result of a bayonet thrust deeply into his body from behind is up to the demand of having to warn the Colonel of impending peril.With a effort worthy of our most sincerest desires in this life time Din slowly climbs and manages to scale the steeple which rests as the top of the tuggee temple.The sound of Gunga Dins horn allows the approaching army to be forewarned.A very large scale battle ensues and the enemy is nullified.It is so Dramatic and tense filled position that as Gunga Din lay Dead on a pile of rocks which his bullet riddled body now shows,Sgt.Cutter says good work soldier.I don't know of any more dramatic moment nor one where we learn what sacrifice means then when the troop is forewarned of the impending peril.

The end is far from being anti-climatic,it is the telling of who Gunga Din is and what he means now to the honored men in uniform for whom he willing sacrificed.Ballantine knows his heart and asks the Colonel to take care of his enlistment papers and this makes MaChesney quite pleased with the Colonel being honest places the enlistment papers in his pocket to be dealt with at perhaps at a more appropriate time.The Colonel says at the place where now all are gathered that we have all done enough soldiering for one long day and further comments on how pleased there efforts were in defense.MaChesney says he would rather here that from the colonel than get a bloomin medal.This is a very sober point and then he comes to Din.Now here is a man who has no actually status so I am going to appoint him a corporal and his name shall be written on the rolls of our honored dead.The poem is read as though it was just penned by Kipling himself who stands by the gravesite with the colonel and the rest of the men.Gunga Din Bravo!


I don't see much reason to get into this movie in much detail. Sylvester Stallone is once again John Rambo, author and survivor of 'A Season in Hell', recruited from prison by his only friend, Major Richard Crenna, to secretly return to Vietnam, take photos of the American prisoners believed to be still held in horrible camps, and return without engaging the enemy.

Fat chance. What if he actually DID nothing more than sneak in, take pics, and sneak out? Who would come to see the movie?

It's essentially a celebration of Stallone's muscles. Preparing for his mission, we see his well-oiled muscles bulging. (They are oiled and bulging throughout.) There is the ritual strapping on of black leather, ugly guns, and even uglier knives. The black guns are cleaned, assembled with loud clacks, and almost as oiled as Stallone's muscles. The bow is tested and, yes, it has enough poundage to drive a bolt through an enemy's forehead. The knife is sharpened with slick snicks.

Stallone and one of his POWs are betrayed by one or two of the suits from Washington, cynical politicians who, you can bet, were never even in a fist fight in grammar school. No guts, you know? Just sit around with their feet on the desk and drink foreign beer.

The movie does what it set out to do, but what it set out to do is meretricious. It deliberately cashes in on the myth popular in the mid-1980s that there were uncountable numbers of MIAs quietly kept in wretched camps by the North Vietnamese. The bumper stickers were ubiquitous. (Free Our MIAs.) Why would they keep them? It was never quite reasoned out but perhaps to turn the POWs into a slave labor force -- in a country that has absolutely no resource other than labor. Or maybe for their propaganda value as an instrument to humiliate the United States -- a propaganda weapon that the Vietnamese kept secret from the world.

As a captive, Rambo is treated in a Medieval fashion by the North Vietnamese. Dipped to his neck in pig excrement and then hauled out of it by his wrists, his muscles still on display. Then, not content with subhuman Vietnamese, a Russian officer is brought in to play the part of the Gestapo officer -- 'Vee haff vays of MAKING you remember.' A high-tech type, the Russian uses psychology and electricity, not just pig dump.

Rambo returns and declares that he intends to drift aimlessly until 'this country loves us as much as we love it,' bringing up another myth that Vets returning from Vietnam were uniformly spat upon and cursed, which is why I guess we elected so many to the Congress and appointed others to high-echelon positions. The last three losing presidential candidates were among that despised group. At least Rambo's aimless drifting left room open for a sequel, which arrived apace.

The action movies with Schwarzenegger and Willis and others were leavened by wisecracks but Rambo is humorless. It marches dully through it's phantasmal ideological swamp, killing without mercy, barely speaking, barely able to speak. To speak is a sign of weakness.


Police story brought Hong Kong movies to modern day cinema.

Jackie plays a policeman who tries to catch some drug dealers and at the same time take care of a young woman from the bad guys, and still take care of his relationship with his girlfriend Selina (Brigitte Lin).

The movie features plenty of stunts, not only from Jackie, but also from other actors (who are now in Jackies stunt club).

Three of Jackie's stunt members went to hospital during filming on the film.

The movie also have some incredible fights scenes like ''the car park fight'' and ''the shoppingmal fight ranks as one of Jackie's finest.

The movie also won award for best movie and best action design by Jackie Chan at Hong Kong film awards.

Everyone who loves Jackie Chan and/or martial art movies shud see this


This show had a promising start as sort of the opposite of 'Oceans 11' but has developed into a shallow display of T & A. Actually, according to my little brother thats the only good part of the show.

The first season was by far the best, it was new and interesting things just went downhill after that. The only redeeming point of this show is JamesCaan, The other actors are lack-luster. The characters lack depth and they seem to be incredibly selfish nd generally un-likable people.

To quote a friend 'Las Vegas is like Baywaych in a Casino' In my opinion thats way to generous, Baywatch was way better, and much more realistic.


A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting.

It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.

In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.


When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.

I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.

Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out 'Stella!!' in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.

Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.

Grade: B+


What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.

This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.

If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out.


Chen Kaige gives us magnificent depth of atmosphere. Yes, it's a 'period piece', but Chen's artistic use of imagery makes it something more. The actors often behave like players using the stylized diction, postures and facial expressions of Peking Opera. All the actors in a scene play to the 'back wall' even when addressing each other. They are like spirits of the past enunciating with powerful clarity a story with urgent meaning for those in the present. Combined with close attention to scale and masterful cinematography indoors and out, 'Jing ke ci qin wang' is a stunning tale told with great reverence in its own idiom that captivates completely.


1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.

The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).

And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...

4/10.


The funniest performance was by Shalom Harlow, as Matt Dillon's supermodel girlfriend. She was more interesting to me than all the lead actors. This movie got it all wrong; even the most dependable actress of the century, Joan Cusask, was not able to rise about the ridiculousness of the plot. I did enjoy hearing 'Macho Man' by the Village People over the closing credits. The rest of the movie might have been tolerable if it were to rise to that level of energy.


This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman.


Kingdom County, Vermont, 1927. Noel Lord (Rip Torn) lives with his Indian mate, Bangor (Tantoo Cardinal) in the area where a large dam is to be built; Noel, however, is not willing to give up on his land, and he'll have to fight the dam company in order to prevent the County from any possible destruction.

'Where the Rivers Flow North' is a gripping, contemplative story powered by the memorable performances of Rip Torn (recently seen in the small but juicy role of Louis XV in Sofia Coppola's underrated 'Marie Antoinette') and Tantoo Cardinal ('Dances With Wolves', 'Smoke Signals'). Director Jay Craven (who also co-wrote the script with Don Bredes, based on Howard Frank Mosher's novel) and cinematographer Paul Ryan crafted this powerful story with unique, contemplative pace/visuals, which remind me of Terrence Malick's and John Huston's best moments. It's an underrated independent period piece of the first (electric) half of the 90's, usually regarded as the rise of Quentin Tarantino's burlesque ('Pulp Fiction' is a masterpiece indeed, but the man suffers from Orson Welles' Syndrome), Todd Solondz's disturbing suburbia, Danny Boyle's dark vision of the UK (let's not mention that 'Beach' flick with DiCaprio, though)... Jay Craven should be more regarded on the lists of great indie filmmakers as well. He's been leading a respectful, discreet career and it's always a pleasure to see a constant talent like his.

My vote: 8/10.


I have to admit I have a particular penchant for the humor and story telling style of British movies, though not all of course, succeed.

This film made me think, and left me in the end with a quiet smile on my face. Its about character development and relationships, truth and lies, and whether love is sometimes simply not enough. Some very nicely understated acting from all the participants, especially the two leads, Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson.

There was a lot of fuss made about Gosford Park, but with this piece I feel Fellowes has actually produced a better movie, though it has not been a mainstream release.

An intelligent mature story about real people who are undeniably flawed, but also capable of acts of genuine graciousness.


For those of you who have no idea what Bug Juice is or was, it was a children's reality show about real kids living at summer camp. Bug Juice is the show that inspired me to go to camp. It was full of romance, friendships, fights, overcoming your fears, and dealing with the struggles of living away from home for 2 months. It was an amazing show that is no longer shown on t.v. regularly, but is amazing non-the-less. The show was never dull and always attracted my attention. It's really nice for kids who have never been to a summer camp to really see what it's like before going. Plus Disney did a really good job of picking camps to showcase because who wants to see a show that's at a camp for like only a week. The length of the camps where perfect for this show, and the environment they where in was fantastic. They where camps all over the U.S., that each provided unique activities for the campers. It was a truly amazing, unscripted show.


The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous.

I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.


After too many years of waiting, Anne Rivers Siddons' noted 1979 book 'The House Next Door' has finally been filmed. The result veers a bit from the novel which, especially in the first story of the trilogy is understandable if unsatisfying as it's a TV film, the whole of which is absorbing and actually very good, just not as great as the book, one of Stephen King's favorites and one of mine as well.

With more running time and fewer constraints as a theatrical release, all the richness inherent in the original three-part story of the ominous ultramodern house could have been explored and nurtured, especially the climactic revelation near the very end.

Still, the whole cast does well in this thoughtful tale of mindless malevolence. There are a few unnecessary cheap shocks but the growing atmosphere of dread is well developed. Actually, one of the most disturbing scenes involves an abstract painting of the house by its next-door amateur-artist neighbor who is trying to visualize its corruption on canvas.

Be sure to read the great novel.


Thats what this movie really takes. A big piece of cheeze. This movie is about a sister and brother Bonnie and Clyde type of duo that creates their own party line in order to lure their victims in and trap them and kill them. But for what reason? Just for the fun of getting away with it? In comes Richard Hatch who comes across as a wishy washy ladies man. A real BAD version of a ladies man. And he gets involved with finding who's behind all the killings across LA. He finally meets a teenager who helps him find the killer and rest is for your fun and amusement. But there are parts in this film that really get me going like the scene with Lief Garret dressed in his mothers wedding gown acting like a sissy in front of his sister telling her that he needs her and can't live without her and watching as she slaps him across the face dominateing him. I can't believe that was Lief!!! Well, I guess I could. But it's worth watching but only to see one of Garrets worst films that he ever did.


This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge  or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.

The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.

Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.

The atrociously shallow performances don't help  Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here  a machine gun? A rocket launcher?!  and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.


I was a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.

I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.

I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.

Rowland Scherman


European Vacation (aka National Lampoon's European Vacation) is the weakest of the Vacation films (the first and third one the most superior of the films). While Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo return as Clark and Ellen Griswold (with new actors in the roles of Russ and Audrey Griswold), this time they are given a weaker script with very bad dialogue. This causes the pacing to suffer, with the jokes not very funny at all. To be more specific, what really causes this film to suffer is the fact that the 'jokes' as they are, are just pasted together into a cobbled-together script), rather than serving a central plot as the other 3 Vacation films have. Oh well, they can't win them all. 4 out of 10.


with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John.


The twins effect is a vampire martial arts movie available in Cantonese with English subtitles. It is a Jackie Chan production and he does make a special guest appearance, although it is not for those that liked Shanghai Noon/Knights and the other recent Hollywood flicks he has become known for, this film is a lot more special than that.

It was originally called The Vampire Effect but as a very popular Chinese female pop duo called The Twins (Charlene Choi and Gillian Chung) took the two leading roles the title was changed to cash in on their fame.

The film will appeal to three types of audience: those who love martial arts films, those who love vampire films and those who loath the rubbish films Hollywood generally churns out.

The premise for the film is that vampires are about and a secret society seeks to hunt them down before we all become snacks for the undead. This bloody work is carried out by some martial artists who drink a little vampire blood to give them the edge they need, well it must be thirsty work! Things are going pretty much for the course until a particularly nasty European vamp finds out that he if he obtains a set of keys held by all the vampire princes then he can walk around in sunlight etc and generally eat when ever he wants to. To say anymore on the plot would spoil the enjoyment of watching the film.

The twins consist of one assigned vampire slayer (Chung) and the sister (Choi) of another. It is the twins that really make the film; with some of the freshest and funniest acting going. The fight scenes they carry out are fast and furious and well choreographed with a mix of genuine athleticism and wire work. To add the cherry on the cake the twins are both quite lovely to watch too.

The direction is crisp and the script is sharp. There are only 3 things that let this film down: the make-up for the vampires is quite poor, Jackie Chan seems to be in the film just for the hell of it and adds nothing to its content, and some of the slapstick comedy attempted by the male vampire hunter is quite lame. Thankfully the twins save the day bringing an originality to the film normally only found in European films. The best scene for me was one of them (Choi) communicating only by screaming, her ability to convey her thoughts through this medium was a comic delight.

Their are many other touches of originality in this film - I particularly liked the coffin complete with surround sound stereo and TV screen! And it is the films' many original touches and acting that stops this from being a tired old flop and turns it into a must see movie.


Recap: Doctor Markov has developed a new theory how to produce energy, knowledge that might unbalance the world. He keeps his knowledge coded and secret and desperately wants out of the Soviet Union. KGB on the other side desperately wants the new technology. So, they sets a scheme in motion. During a rescue attempt to free Markov, KGB steps in, takes Markov to a secret location and lures him to reveal his secret by saying they are in Sweden, and working for the UN. As a backup, KGB kidnaps Markov's estranged daughter. CIA now send their best agents, a team of (Swedish?) Ninjas to thwart KGB and rescue Markov and his daughter.

Comments: A cult movie that despite not being very good needs seeing. The movie is quite ambitious but lacking in many areas. First off is that it is very dark, probably to conceal locations and bad effects, that some scenes are hard to comprehend. You can't see what is happening. The second thing that it is lacking is martial arts, despite being a ninja-movie. Sure there are some, of quite poor quality, but mostly the ninjas fires automatic guns or sets of explosions. The automatic guns pose a problem too as they seem to have a endless supply of ammunition. And the ninjas seem almost immune to bullets while Soviet guards die like flies.

What does it have that speaks for it then? The idea and ambition foremost. Some actually, and especially for a Swedish movie, decent action-scenes albeit not of martial arts. Some nice slow-motion scenes and pretty much blood and gore. And some very interesting new weapons technology that makes the victims heart or brain explode. Mostly all parts that you look for in a B-movie.

Because it definitely is a B-movie, no mistake could be made there. But if you expect it, and watch it like a B-movie, it is entertaining. But don't forget, it is not only a B-movie it is set in the eighties. Some girls, for example, besides wearing... lets say 'interesting' clothes, have lethal doses of eye shadow and makeup.

In all, see for the cult status and the ambition. Enjoy it, and then forget it.

4/10


I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.

1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.

This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians.

A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.

Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like.


This movie is important to those of us interested in western history because it makes use of authentic techniques in its production.

The scenes of the wagon train are particularly authentic; so far as I know, it contains the only scenes ever filmed illustrating the techniques for river crossings at a bluff. The horses and mules have to be lowered to the river level and the wagons let down by ropes and pulleys. The scene is such that I could watch it over and again just trying to get a feel for what a crossing was like...and the early travelers did it time and time again while crossing the country.

Melodrama aside, this picture is as authentic in dress and style as they come and worth watching for that alone.


The action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?

It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste time.


Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the 'hilarious' misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such 'great' moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory 'gay' caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other 'bright' spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.


The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.


This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. It's...terrible. But it's so good! It's probably best if you don't watch it expecting a gripping plot and something fantastically clever and entertaining, because you're going to be disappointed. However, if you want to watch it so you can see 50 million vases and Goro's fantastic hair/bad English, you're in for a real treat. The harder you think about the film, the worse it gets, unless you're having a competition to spot the most plot holes/screw ups, in which case you've got hours of entertainment ahead. I'd only really recommend this film for the bored or the die-hard Smap fans. And even then, the latter should be a bit careful, because Goro's Japanese fans were a bit upset about it, they thought he was selling himself out. (He wasn't really, not when Johnny Kitagawa (who was the executive producer) can do that for him).


Well, some people would say that this particular movie stinks...but hey! Thats not right, not right at al...The movie may not have the best special effects, and may not have the best actors (Except the exelence of the Barbarian Bros.) Dispite theese minor fact, I can honostly say that this is one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen, and I´ve seen em al!


If the ending hadn't been so fantastically unexpected, I don't think I could rate this movie so well.

This movie has a lot of uncomfortable, distressing, 'marriage falling apart' character interaction. That sort of thing is not my kind of drama, so the pace seemed to drag for me.

In addition, the main characters are difficult to relate to and thus care much about -- the husband (Alan Rickman) is rather bitter and cranky and the wife (Polly Walker) is aloof and a little haughty. The acting was just fine (Norman Reedus was very alluring), but the characters themselves were perhaps a little TOO realistically flawed (for me).

The setting was nice and appropriately isolated and a little spooky. The cinematography had something to it that seemed a little old-fashioned to me somehow.

But the last 5-15 minutes of this movie are so ingenious that every uncomfortable scene, awkward conversation, and inexplicable character behavior absolutely worth it. I guessed every typical plot twist except the one that occurred.

The ending definitely makes this movie worth watching. The intrigue and the drama, not quite as much.


That's certainly not the best film ever. But that's certainly worth seeing for people with a special kind of mind. So the one who loves sadness and depression, and scary fairy-tales at night, and wolves and real madness - welcome! If you find a copy, of course:) As for me, I could stand it only once... But since that the Wolves, and Saint-Lucy, and children's drawings, and a headless Christ live in my nightmares.


This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.


This film is absolutely appalling and awful. It's not low budget, it's a no budget film that makes Ed Wood's movies look like art. The acting is abysmal but sets and props are worse then anything I have ever seen. An ordinary subway train is used to transport people to the evil zone of killer mutants, Woddy Strode has one bullet and the fight scenes are shot in a disused gravel pit. There is sadism as you would expect from an 80s Italian video nasty. No talent was used to make this film. And the female love interest has a huge bhind- Italian taste maybe. Even for 80s Italian standards this film is pretty damn awful but I guess it came out at a time when there weren't so many films available on video or viewers weren't really discerning. This piece of crap has no entertainment value whatsoever and it's not even funny, just boring and extremely cheap. It's actually and insult to the most stupid audience. I just wonder how on earth an actor like Woody Strode ended up ia a turkey like this?


'Un Gatto nel Cervello'/'Cat in the Brain' is one of the goriest horror movies ever made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as 'self parody' of Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies 'Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio' and 'I Fantasmi di Sodoma'(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised 'The Snake House' aka 'Bloody Psycho' by Leandro Lucchetti,'Massacre' by Andrea Bianchi,'Non Avere Paura Della Zia Marta' by Mario Bianchi,'Non Si Sevizia i Bambini' by Giovanni Simonelli and 'Luna di Sangue' aka 'Fuga dalla Morte' by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from 'Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio',a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema!


I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, 'We want you to _think_ !!', but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.

If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: 'Einstein's Universe', Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), 'The Cosmic Code', by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being 'open-minded'.

To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.

You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? 'Thirteenth Floor', directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.


This film is Engaging and Complex while maintaining simple beauty .Our two characters come together sharing the base of curiosity and loneliness, but it is a springboard for learning these people, they 're life styles and pasts which support this.

The two lead actors (Bohl, Brundruge) were in the moment as any two actors I have ever seen. %100 believable, they transport the audience seemingly effortlessly, into their world. The actors' seamless acting teamed with Bechard's Beautiful, realistic dialog and his truthful direction drives the story forward into a striking and moving finale.This film is visual treat- soft ,increasing the intensity of The story. The soundtrack serenades the viewer, soothing yet drawing out the emotional content of the film. I find this project to be nothing short of a masterpiece. intriguing.intense.


John Travolta was excellent as 'Michael' in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very 'human angel' (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times!


Well,this movie is really 'PLUMPED' HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if 'PLUMP' (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly 'Funny' moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!

In overall PLUMP Fiction,is 'PLUMPABLE' but you wont gather much at all!

Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!

So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its 'PLUMPABLE',but you will only gather a few 'PLUMPS' from it!

Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!


Ignore the extreme votes about 'House of Wax', in no way is it either a '1' or a '10'. I will try to be of help to anyone thinking about seeing 'House of Wax' or for those who saw it based on the trailer and feel cheated. The trailer makes this movie look very promising, which is what trailers are supposed to do. There is only one thing for sure with trailers, if the producers can't cobble together a minute of interesting elements to make a trailer, it is a pretty much a sure thing that the movie is a major suck-fest. But a good trailer only tells you that a few things about the movie are good, it does not give you much idea about the total package. Here a little research can be valuable.

'House of Wax' stars Elisha Cuthbert (whose acting skills are closer to Kathy Ireland than to either her fellow Canadian Sarah Polley or her lookalike Rose McGowen), and was directed by a music video artist formerly known as Jaume, in his feature debut. These are not good signs but if you are like me you ignore them and go to see the work of Production Designer Grace Walken, who was responsible for the look of 'Ghost Ship'. Once again Walken's work is worth seeing, so much so that it looks like 90% of the movie's $30 million budget went to production design. The rest went to Cuthbert to compensate her for the abuse she has to take throughout the film (finger cut off, lips glued shut, tied up, and lots of wading around in assorted gooey stuff). By-the-bye, Cuthbert looks considerably heavier than she did in 'The Girl Next Door', about one big pig-out away from having a major weight problem.

Which means they had little left over to pay the rest of the cast and crew. And judging from the what was on the screen, this might actually be true. It looks like everyone else donated their time to get their first acting or crew credit. Unfortunately, whether it was inexperience or jealousy over the pay disparity, the contributions of all these inexperienced/incompetent volunteers amount to less than zero.

Inexperienced Steven Window's DP work was about as awful as you are likely to see and working in league with an incompetent editor like Joel Negran (insert 'Pearl Harbor' here) they manage to take away most of the value added by the production design group. Rather than linger over and showcase the sets, Window filmed this stuff with bad lighting and jerky-zooming-bobbing camera work. Negran compounded the problem with an insane number of disorienting cuts. Poor lighting, an ADD-like camera, and flurry cutting are what you use to hide cheap and crappy production design; not what is needed when the movie's only strength is its expensive and detailed sets.

Chan Hayes did the screenplay and Charles Belden (who wrote the original story) is credited as the writer although except for the title and the use of wax figures there is absolutely no similarity. One saving grace is that the movie does not take itself seriously as a horror film and is mostly parody (insert 'Van Helsing' here). The murders are played for laughs, too extreme to be scary or even creepy to anyone over age six. The audience particularly cracked up when a certain high profile hotel heiress got her homely face run through by an steel bar, although her earlier half-baked striptease was the only genuinely creepy thing in the film. Another comedy highlight was when Cuthbert sticks her finger through a grate and has it clipped off by the bad guy.

The good scenes take place in Trudy's House of Wax, a waxworks that has something to do with a closed sugar mill, conjoined twins, and a lot of roadkill (which Cuthbert gets to bathe in). All this is supposed to be happening somewhere in rural Florida although from the many hills it sure looks like Paul Hogan's country (attention location scouts-the gulf coast is not noted for it's rolling terrain). The screenplay apparently intended to play up the connection (bad pun) between the two sets of twins, but somewhere during production or post-production most of the dialogue concerning this was trimmed. Since what is left about the twin connection makes no sense and goes nowhere, you wonder why it wasn't also cut to reduce the boredom factor.

What is particularly sad is that the producers did not have the brains to recognize in mid-production that they had the ingredients for a first rate horror classic-even with the existing cast. What was staring them in the face was a chance to go somewhere with the illusion of a town of wax. Because it is a photographic medium, modern film is intrinsically naturalistic, almost without exception prone to creating an illusion of reality. Here they had a ready-made opportunity to give the photographic medium a theatrical element of extreme stylization. Like an impressionist painting, the town creates the illusion of reality from a distance but reveals itself as a highly stylized wax fabrication up close. Of course they would have had to find a visionary Director and DP to bring the thing off successfully, but everything else was already in place for this to happen.


'Flesh' is hard to describe with a solid summary because, well, there basically isn't a plot. The film pretty much just shows the day in the life of a hustler named Joe (Joe Dallesandro, who is in the underrated Louis Malle picture 'Black Moon') as he makes his rounds, sleeping and modeling around to cash in the bucks to pay for his wife's lover's abortion.

Not much, and since the film is quite a lengthy eighty-nine minutes, you would think that 'Flesh' would be a slow-moving and boring hour and a half. You think wrong. The film is made up of improv, no screenplay and the angles of the film are pretty on-the-spot as well, yet there is some kind of truth beneath every frame that gives the film its dementedly entertaining vibrancy. Everything makes sense and serves purpose in what happens to Joe in this one day. He meets a regular john that is obviously lying when saying he wants to see Joe again, a photographer who talks so much that it bores Joe to tears, two drag queens who read out of tabloid magazines as Joe receives head from a mousy-voiced addict who mumbles on later about how she wants to get a breast lift, an old friend of Joe who reads male-on-male rape stories to him, and then a final scene with his wife and her lover that eerily echoes the scene at the start of the film (one of the best openings to a film I have seen in quite some time)  and tells completely what the film is overall philosophically about.

It's astounding how the film's messages and styles feel almost timeless, even though it's set in 1960s New York City, in real time, in real place, and is filmed like an obvious independent flick from that era. It's certainly not a film that could be made today, which adds on to its delicious mystique.

Fueled by unexpected jump cuts; and absent of a score to advance its images  'Flesh' is about as raw, gritty as a film about male prostitution in the 60s can get.


The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.

However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.

It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD.


Is Miike like Chabrol, alternating art with dreck, sometimes confusing the two? Does he match the fifty/fifty rate some claim for Chabrol? Do we see here too much or too little Miike? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But I could easily fill ten lines just citing Chakushin ari's (One Missed Call's) steals, allusions, and clichés. Others here will hit on most of them, though not perhaps Ochiai's Saimin (Hypnosis) for the sleazy telecast taunting things supernatural. Only once, when Yumi takes the zombie-like mother in her arms, did One Missed Call startle me a little.

One other point of interest: Renji Ishibashi (looks like Christopher Walken) as the detective. Ishibashi in Audition's abusive back story, and as Dead or Alive's Boss Aoki of the vat of excrement drowning and more, may be the most convincingly evil character actor I've ever seen. So here he's a cop.


Okay. This has been a favourite since I was 14. Granted, I don't watch it multiple times a year anymore, but... This is not a movie for an older generation who want a deeper meaning or some brilliant message. This movie is FUN. It's pretty dated, almost passe, but Parker Posey is so brilliant that it's unbelievable. If you want to be charmed by a 90's Breakfast at Tiffany's, attended 90's raves, or love Parker, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother.


You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.

I was not disappointed in the least.

Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh.

Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't 'tears' come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.


Writers and directors, by the nature of their craft, stand back a frame from the action in their work to show insights about characters and situations. Here, Huston and Joyce have stepped back a bigger frame yet to show us the ultimate view of what it means to be human. Until it's very end the movie appears to be about nothing much, the kind of typical circumstances that fill every day life. It is not until the end of the very final scene that we realize that it is in fact about everything.

It is not possible to watch this final scene without simultaneously feeling pity, and also deep affection, for oneself and the rest of fellow beings.


After reading so many glowing reports of 'To Serve Them All My Days' I went out and bought it for Christmas. A waste of money, I'm afraid. I was looking forward to something in the same league as 'Brideshead Revisited' and some of the few other great productions from British television but this is decidedly not among them.

The characters are all too good to be true, swathed in a very predictable plot and with the most trite and eye-rolling script I've heard in years. Yes, it has its moments, but they are very thin on the ground. The lead actor is interesting, mostly because of his uncanny resemblance to Anthony Andrews (Sebastian in 'Brideshead'), only dark. But his undoubted talents are wasted on a character who is insufferably self-important and priggish. His prickliness is attributed to the effects of his experiences in the Somme during WW1. He does the early episodes, centered around his nervous condition, better than he does playing the the squeaky clean, socialist do-gooder later on.

The women are completely unbelievable, as in un-real. His first wife is annoyingly chipper and chirpy, the girlfriend, the perfect sophisticated slut, and the last lady a hodge-podge of political bosh. The most interesting characters are Howarth (Alan MacNaughton) and one of the other masters, named Hobarth, I forget the actor's name.

The high-minded preachiness of the script is typical Andrew Davies, screen-writer, in his early years, and becomes tiresome within the first two episodes (this mini-series is 11 episodes long!). By episode 4 I just wanted to get through the blasted thing.

The music is equally tedious, limited mostly to one mawkish piano tune and a chorale sung by boys during the credits. No expense was spared on the location settings which gives some visual relief to an otherwise excruciating viewing experience.

I like stories of this sort, as a rule, and am very disappointed at the maudlin nature of this series. If you want to watch something riveting about WW1 and its after-effects there are many other far finer vehicles to rent or buy. One that comes to mind is 'The Unknown Soldier' from 1998. The characters in that Masterpiece Theater presentation are real and fascinating and move one, unlike the 2 dimensional puppets in 'To Serve Them All My Days.' As for films on boys' schools stick to 'Goodbye Mr Chips' or 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'.

I know this goes against the general favorable view of this mini-series, but I strongly recommend thinking twice before shelling out $80.00 to Acorn Media for their 4 DVD set, 2 discs of which on my set had insurmountable problems with freezing and skipping.


This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the 'Night Gallery' show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.


A spin off comedy talk show from the creators of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' The new series, Man to Man with Dean Learner, focuses on Garth's manager, publisher and publicity agent, as played by Richard Ayoade.

Nightclub owner, restaurateur, publisher, international playboy - Dean Learner is a one-man brand.

After his co-funded Channel 4 television hit Garth Marenghi's Darkplace he now invites you into his luxury penthouse flat for an all-new, entertaining and immensely stylish TV talk show.

Man to Man with Dean Learner will feature all Dean's remaining celebrity friends, as well as plenty of live music and fine fish-dish cuisine in a show that reeks of class - but not fish!

I attended two of the live recordings and it had me in stitches. There are distinct comparisons to Alan Partridge's 'Knowing me Knowing you' in the layout but Richard Ayoade and Matt Holness's unique writing style take it to another level.

If your a fan of Darkplace then you can't miss it. Catch it when its aired late this summer


'Volcano' is a B-movie at best, and at worst is more of a disaster that what it's supposed to be depicting. To be fair, you have to be prepared in any movie to suspend disbelief for one major concept. 'Volcano' asks you to suspend disbelief in science, human interaction, and common sense.

Tommy Lee Jones gets to be the studly-yet-1990s-sensitive head honcho of the Office of Emergency Management, and he's fine when he's not stuck with the stupid dialogue the script provides. However, Anne Heche gives a howlingly bad performance as a smart-ass geologist who becomes Roark's love interest (while the city is burning down, natch). Gaby Hoffman goes from Field of Dreams and American President to a turn as a whimpering, needy, and victim-for-life daughter of Jones. Don Cheadle gets to sit in a really coooool office and take Jones's phone calls, doing the job that in reality Roark would and should be doing.

Anyway, the movie really starts going downhill when Heche's geology partner gets sucked into a lava vent while they're breaking into the subway lines. It picks up speed when Jones starts suggesting that they use buses to dam the flow of the lava flowing down the street, Heche's geologist (who loves to lecture everyone about The Science Of Geology) being apparently oblivious to the fact that lava is hot and it melts metal, and rock, and a dead bus is unlikely to have much effect. It really starts to suck when the film introduces Rodney King-like racial tension between two bad actors dressed as cops and an angry black man who can't understand why the fire department is busy with this large river of flowing lava. But hey, in the end, the three of them will be working together to build a K-rail dam to stop the lava from eating up his neighborhood, even though the dam is built in the wrong direction and the material used wouldn't stop lava anyway. Besides, K-rails are hardly watertight, but I guess lava wouldn't think to poke its head through the gaps, not when Tommy Lee Jones is glaring at it. Don't even get me started on the stranded-subway-car subplot, where a tunnelful of hot lava is coming down but oddly enough, it's not too hot to attempt a rescue, it's not too smoky to see, and there aren't any poisonous gases so everyone can breathe. This must be LA Lava, or Lava Lite. You know, it eats cars but is eco-friendly.

There are moments of sheer camp here that almost make you wonder if this was meant to be a comedy. For instance, the two security guards packing up Hieronymus Bosch paintings have a completely meaningless and farcical conversation about weight, and at the end, no sooner does the little boy Roark/Jones rescued note that everyone looks the same while covered in ash, than a rainstorm breaks out and cleans everyone up -- and then the sun comes out and Heche says something along the lines of, 'aw, shucks, Roark'.

'Volcano' almost achieves Battlefield Earth status, but except for Heche no one approaches Travolta-like badness and the technical aspects are handled pretty well. If you are from the LA area as I am, it's kind of funny to think of a lava flow wiping out Wilshire Boulevard. I gave it a three for the effects and the little amount of tension you get from this.


Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.

The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.

The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.

Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.

Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.

The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.

The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, 'It's time for recess!' Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.


Old horror movies are interesting, plenty of screams, plenty of shouts, and plenty of humor to go along with it. 'The Blob' is a classic in it's own work. Steve McQueen(1930-80) plays a teen who tries to be a hero in his town. Going out on a date with his girl is rather typical for all teens. But when the old man discovers the same falling object form the sky, he ends up being the victim, and Steve helps him out the best he can. When its up to teen power, this movie really provides it. I know most teens have had their hardships when they act up, when danger comes around, they must learn to forget the past and start doing something good to save humanity. When the adults in town ended up learn the hard way about 'The Blob' running amok, they must learn to trust teenagers and not let their behavior get the better of them. The oozing juggernaut was rather cute in the day, and in my opinion I think it was JELL-O! When everyone pitches in to stop the menace, the town is once again safe, thanks to good old cooperation. I still eat Jello and watch this movie all the time, if you don't like Jello, TOUGH! RATING 5 STARS


Ridiculous, nauseating doggerel with terrible acting; ineptly, superficially, and condescendingly trawling all the most banal clichés about Tuscany and Italy, divorce and midlife. The main actor nervously grimaces her way through the film, struggling to portray the appropriate level of smug, self-congratulatory self-pity the worthless character and script call for. I'm sure the book was bad, but it can't have been this bad! The camera is permanently fitted with a vomit-yellow 'Tuscan' lense filter (perhaps the Tuscan sun wasn't Tuscan enough?), which they forgot to remove when the scene shifts to Rome and (how imaginative!) the Amalfi coast. You've never seen the white marble of Rome's Vittorio Emmanuelle monument looking so yellow... I mean Tuscan. One of the worst movies ever, and therefore quite worth a look.


I believe that this is one of Elizabeth Montgomery's best performances in a movie, and I have seen most of her movies.I saw this for the first time on television when I was around fourteen, and I was so scared.I watch this movie every now and then, and I still enjoy it very much.I know that these days that this movie would probably not scare people too much.That just goes to show that the public movie and television audience has seen too much graphic violence in the last thirty years or so.I love movies that do not show the graphic details, you let your imagination do the work for you. The cast in this movie was top notch. Jess Walton, who played the sister in the story was very good, even though her part was rather small. She also played in a terrific made for television thriller around the same time called You'll Never See Me Again with David Hartman.I got the biggest kick out of Eileen Heckart's performance as the housekeeper. Eileen was so good as a lady with a very bad disposition.George Maharis who played the husband was quite effective.This story obviously had a lot of so called mistakes in the plot, but I love the movie anyway. I highly recommend this movie to people who love a good thriller without graphic violence.I gave this movie a vote of seven.


If you read Errol Flynn's autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways, you will see that this film is full of poetic licence. Not that that makes much of a difference, because Errol Flynn was pretty generous with poetic licence in the autobiography anyway. No need to worry about spoilers, since there is nothing there to spoil.

To me it would seem more sensible to use the story about a fictitious Hollywood actor; then you could go out and find a better actor than Duncan Regehr to play him, and you wouldn't have to worry about the audience saying things like: 'But he didn't have a moustaches in Captain Blood.' Another failing of this film is that it shows Flynn as a two-dimensional character. Flynn was an intelligent man, well educated, well read. This film only concentrates on his funster image.

Regehr is a disaster. The rest of the cast struggle with their scripts. Hal Linden is OK as Warner, and Barbara Hershey makes a believable Damita, although Lili Damita herself did not think so.

The best thing to do with this film is to forget about it and let it gently slip away to oblivion. So what I am writing this for, I can't imagine.


I first saw Love in Limbo playing late on free to air TV about five years ago, and since then it's a movie I'll always remember warmly as one of those films you see and are forever influenced by.

For the uninitiated, Australian film has a long history of making off-beat comedies about lovable losers, and Love in Limbo is a sterling example of this. Whilst Russel Crowe is the only name actor in it (although these days he's all a movie needs), the rest of the Aussie cast is good- he still steals the show as a nervous, nerdy, virgin loser though.

The general premise is a lot like American Pie. A group of friends wanting to get laid and become men. As you'd expect, the entire movie focusses on this (with a sub-plot about the lead's mother and various other incidents), and is full of humorous situations that push it towards the inevitably sweet ending.

If you enjoyed American Pie, don't expect this to be the same- but expect the same conventions to make appearances. Love in Limbo isn't a gross out romantic comedy- but it definitely has its share of laughs, fist pumping moments when the good guy wins, and the situations every guy, Australian or otherwise, can relate to.

See it if you liked: American Pie, Almost Famous. Strengths: Good Aussie cast, easy to relate to, good perve value. Weaknesses: Predictable at points. My Rating: 8 out of 10


Although the concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's

sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic 'battle' with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an 'Our Gang' fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era.

Of course the requisite 'happy ending' is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end.


I give this film 8/10 overall. Visually, a great deal of it is nothing short of stunning: an art director's dream mix of Hieryonomous Bosch, Salvador Dali, Frieda Kahlo and Georgia O'Keeffe--and a valid testament to the power of film as a serious art form. Beautiful use of color, form, imagery, environment--and fabulous set decoration, combine with state-of-the-art computer graphics. So, 10/10 for that! Wow!

The plot line is, well, more predictable. You know they'll save the girl and get the killer in the end, but the story is still interesting and pacy enough to pull you in and keep you there. 6/10 for that.

Squirm factor...I won't give this a rating, but the film certainly made me squirm, and I was watching it on video on a tv screen. It would, of course, have a great deal more impact on a big screen. Graphic violence of a twisted, erotic nature in a surreal landscape--even if beautiful--is highly unpredictable. The world inside the killer's head is not--thank goodness!--my world. Because I watched this film on video, I was able to replay a couple of sequences and found much to admire the second time around when I wasn't so nervous about where the scene might be going, and I suspect the whole film would be worth seeing a second time, just for the 'visual art'.

General suggestion: don't take the kids or conservative grandparents to this one, but if you're keen on the visual look of films, like surrealist art, don't mind a bit of kinky gore, and just want to take a bit of a 'mind trip', this one's a winner. Oh, and if you're keen on babes, Jennifer Lopez is pretty hot.


I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick.


Despite what the title may imply, 'Pigs Is Pigs' does not star Porky Pig. Rather, it features a young swine with an appetite more insatiable than John Belushi's character in 'Animal House'. His mother repeatedly scolds him, but it does no good. So much so that he goes to another house where a deranged scientist force-feeds him more than any mere mortal can handle (but there's a surprise at the end).

I would mostly say that this cartoon seemed like a place holder in between the really great cartoons (Daffy Duck debuted three months after this came out). But make no mistake about it, they do some neat things here. The whole force-feeding sequence looks more relevant today, given the obesity epidemic overtaking our country.

Anyway, not the greatest cartoon, but worth seeing.


It's only 2 episodes into a 5 part drama, but I can already state that this is one of the best things I've ever seen. That's on TV, silver screen or even in real life.

As a writer, it's so good it's almost demoralising! As a viewer it's so entertaining that I'm annoyed the episodes are over a fortnight instead of Monday to Friday. It's clear that all these negatives are actually positives.

I'm a modern guy who previously turned over from TV dramas. In comparison to movies, TV dramas always seemed to be dated, quite tame, and well, generally boring! 'Five Days' has really brought TV drama into the 21st Century, so for me at least, it's mind changing. Go watch it.


Fox is pretty lame. They cancel the wrong shows. It's bizarre that they would cancel a well-written program like 'Arrested Development' and yet they keep this show and 'War at Home'. I feel that Fox loved that they broke barriers with the then-edgy 'Married with Children', but now it's just getting ridiculous. 'The Loop' is a pointless and boring watch, and their edgy jokes just fall flat. In order for edgy comedy to work you have to keep the jokes coming. 'Family Guy' and 'The Simpons' work because there is a constant flow of jokes. Fox needs to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and quit letting their relatives write this mediocre tripe. I mean, if you're going to invest money into making something entertaining, make it entertaining. Also, stop using 'no-named' actors. It's great to have up-and-comers, but you need to anchor a show with a noted celebrity. Duh, Fox.


What was I thinking when I rented this one? What did the distributor think when he copied the tape and shipped it all the way to Holland? That anyone really wanted to see this s***?!?

It's about some astronauts getting into trouble outer space (Apollo 13 flashback, but never even in the shadow of this fine film) and they want to return to home. If you act in such a film, you should be glad that you're gonna drift away from earth as far as possible!

This one wants to surf on the small wave of space movies in 1998 (Deep Impact and Armageddon), and this one fails everywhere. Deep Impact and Armageddon weren't perfect either (far from it), but they were at least worth watching once (and maybe one more time when we're all old). They gave some fun. Max Q doesn't. It gives irritation. Okay, okay. It's a TV movie, but does that mean you're allowed to come up with such a mess?

If you haven't choked in your own vomit by the end (by all the cheap drama and worthless dialogue) you've must have bored yourself to death with this waste of time.

It gets at its worst at the end when the space shuttle lands on... No, I can't 'spoil' this one (IMDb guidelines forbid it). So you have to see for yourself. NO! DON'T SEE IT (sorry), but rent a movie which is worth renting (like Battlefield Earth... just kidding!)

Probably the worst one I have ever seen.


I wasn't expecting to be so impacted by this film portraying a family just like the one you'd expect to be living next door. They are ordinary flesh-and-blood people, not like the typical Hollywood fare. They face an all too common problem--debilitating illness. But the story-line grips the heart with a powerful lesson. Casting, script, direction, and acting flow together with a surge that draws the viewer deep into the story. Give this film your full attention and its message will truly inspire.


FUTZ is the only show preserved from the experimental theatre movement in New York in the 1960s (the origins of Off Off Broadway). Though it's not for everyone, it is a genuinely brilliant, darkly funny, even more often deeply disturbing tale about love, sex, personal liberty, and revenge, a serious morality tale even more relevant now in a time when Congress wants to outlaw gay marriage by trashing our Constitution. The story is not about being gay, though -- it's about love and sex that don't conform to social norms and therefore must be removed through violence and hate. On the surface, it tells the story of a man who falls in love with a pig, but like any great fable, it's not really about animals, it's about something bigger -- stifling conformity in America.

The stage version won international acclaim in its original production, it toured the U.S. and Europe, and with others of its kind, influenced almost all theatre that came after it. Luckily, we have preserved here the show pretty much as it was originally conceived, with the original cast and original director, Tom O'Horgan (who also directed HAIR and Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway).

This is not a mainstream, easy-to-take, studio film -- this is an aggressive, unsettling, glorious, deeply emotional, wildly imaginative piece of storytelling that you'll never forget. And it just might change the way you see the world...


At the very beginning, the look at a control panel that reads '8 miles of the cost of California', and no, I didn't misspell that, they really did not realize the put of the cost instead of off the coast. These people must have been morons.

It's good if you're into terrible movies, but the sheer fact they couldn't catch a simple spelling issue make me believe they really didn't put any effort into creating the movie whatsoever. The Navy uniforms are not correct at all in any manner whatsoever.

Wow, completely ridiculous, but good if you are looking for something insanely stupid to watch. How these folks made any money off this is beyond me.


Garlin outdoes himself as writer-director-actor in his indie production about a big guy (Garlin) wandering around Chicago with an eye for every woman he sees. The laughs keep coming almost every minute. It's a somewhat dramatic and serious story about a man looking for love, but done with great comedic writing and acting. The supporting roles are also very well done and very funny and really make the movie rich.

Rose Abdoo is hysterical in her receptionist role taking you right into the mood of the rest of the film. Sara Silverman is awesome with some of the great bits she does with Jeff. Bonnie Hunt is classically great in her role. I only wish there was more of her in the film, as I think most will agree. It's certainly refreshing to see her in a tight leather outfit.

David Pasquesi was the aloof detached sidekick, and voice of reason. Mina Kolb plays Jeff's mother who he lives with. There were numerous other cameos, all of them done very well.

At the premier Jeff mentioned his inability to do more with Bonnie due to production issues. Still, it's good to leave you wanting more. I think it's that indie thing of keeping some things ambiguous to let the audience do some thinking for themselves to fill in the blanks. The wordy title should clue you in to this.

Jeff said some of the basic characters were based on his past relationships. This explains why they work so well. Real life people are always unusually colorful and makes great characters. He departs quite a bit from what you might expect, having seen Curb Your Enthusiasm and some of his other work. It's one of those break out things where an actor takes some risks to do something they maybe always wanted to do but couldn't.

I think it's noteworthy that Garlin's improv Second City background, and Hunt's for that matter, set the style here of acting being the focus of the story and the directing. It's perhaps a new innovative hybrid of improv meets indie film-making.


December holiday specials, like the original Frosty, ought to be richly-produced with quality music and a wholesome, yet lighthearted storyline. They should have a touch of the mystical magic of the holidays. Basically, they should look, sound, and feel...well, 'special' and they should have a decent and appropriate December holiday subtext.

So when I saw Legend of Frosty the Snowman in the TV listings, I got my kids (6 and 8) pumped up for it by telling them the story of the original Frosty and passionately relating how much I enjoyed it as a kid. As my wife and kids cozied up on the couch to watch the movie the expectations were high, but 10 minutes into it my kids were yawning and my wife and I were giving each other 'the look' and rolling our eyes. After 35 minutes my kids were actually asking to go to bed -- I guess they were fed up with the insensitive language and pointless, disconnected segments. I was actually embarrassed about their (and my) disappointment with this movie.

Unfortunately, Legend of Frosty the Snowman is more like a bad episode of Fairly Odd Parents crossed with a worse-than-normal episode of Sponge Bob than a classic holiday movie. Don't get me wrong...those shows are fine and I like them as much as the next guy, but when I watch Fairly Odd Parents or Sponge Bob, my low expectations (for mediocre, off-color, zero subtext, mind numbing episodes) are always satisfied.

We picked out some good books and spent the rest of the evening reading together. A much better choice than the embarrassingly bad Legend of Frosty the Snowman.


I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards.


I've read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.


Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.

I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says 'Really me?' after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.

The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).

The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.

I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.

I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10.


Beginning in 1942, the Sherlock Holmes character as portrayed by Basil Rathbone was set in the then 'modern' Britain. Many Holmes purists have praised the first two entries in the series (produced by FOX), but dismissed the 12 features that followed. I for one was never an avid reader, and thus I appreciate these films as they are without any initial bias. In fact, the setting of World War II for this entry places it as a period piece with the British propaganda evident throughout the film. The execution of the modern Holmes is handled with much more care than the previous entry (Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror)and fares much better for two reasons. First, Roy William Neil is on hand to direct (and would be for the rest of the series), and second although Holmes is pitted against the Nazis, the inclusion of Professor Moriarty makes this feel more like a battle of the intellect between two rivals. Lionel Atwill's performance has been criticized by many as being far inferior to that of George Zucco and Henry Daniel, but I feel as if its more the script than the character interpretation. Especially after seeing that Atwill was very capable of being much more diverse and enthusiastic in other horror roles. Basil Rathbone on the other hand is exceptional in this entry. He seems to be enjoying himself in the role of Holmes, but for that I blame the writing. For example: The introduction of Holmes in the Voice of Terror tries to hard to immediately establish how superbly intelligent Holmes is as soon as he is on screen, whereas this film shows Holmes' brilliant deductions, but also his shortcomings. Even in the climax Holmes initially has the upper hand, only to then have his blood slowly drained from his body. Now there are a few flaws in this film I thought I might point out. First the opening; Aren't the Germans fooled a little too easily? Maybe its just me, but the book seller just waltzes into the bar, says he's gonna get Tobel to not only answer his door after weeks of hiding, but allow him to come in and then go for a walk with him? What!? Second, Tobel certainly seems to put everyone around him in danger. Leaving the secret bomb parts with genius scientists. Leaving the note with his fiancé. Like what was he thinking? He was endangering them all. I thought he was this superb scientist trying to save England? And isn't the whole concept of 'use it on them before they use it on us' a little harsh. Obvious propaganda. Third, just how in God's name was Holmes supposed to fit in the bottom of that chest? Its really small! In fact the entire execution of Holmes finding Moriarty in the ex-con disguise really doesn't explain itself that well. I have seen this film well over fifty times and there are still parts like this that I find are executed in a very confusing fashion. Fourth, okay so Holmes finds out the first three scientists are dead then immediately assumes that Moriarty couldn't know the name of the fourth man because he wasn't dead yet. Well if Holmes didn't know the name then how could he assume that? The guy could very well have been face down in a lake. Lucky guess. Fifth, again with the confusion. When Holmes is supposedly dying on Moriarty's operating table, how can he recover so quickly? He sure was acting like he lost a few pints of blood, but not enough to stop him from saving the day. Now despite these flaws this is a highly entertaining film. The disguises are well done, the mystery of the dancing men is well done (especially the back-to-back scenes of Holmes and Moriarty each figuring out they were over analyzing them) and Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade is always a plus. And as a final note, the interrogation scene still kinda bothers me, I always thought that was one of the most well done sequences in the whole film. Overall, this film holds a special place with me as it was the one that solidified my Rathbone as Holmes obsession. A classic. 7/10.


If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the 'good' and 'bad' guys is decidedly less than distinct.

Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an 'enemy' soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.

I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment.


I watched this movie with my boyfriend, an avid hip-hop fan and he was really really looking forward to catch the 'soul' vibe the movie claimed to have. Boy, we were dead wrong. When I finished watching the movie I felt two things: remorse and relief. Remorse because I regretted wasting my time to watch this awful piece of dung, and relief because I watched it free on cable.

This movie really really gives a bad name to black people, by putting so much awful stereotypes that I believe all smart black people everywhere has been trying to spell off. I'm Asian, and I feel very very sorry and sick for those who made this movie. What more to say? Bad writing, even worse acting, and horrible storyline.

Even if you're bored to death and has no other choice, don't watch this movie. Seriously. The movie really has nothing to offer, except if you want to see things like minor illegal drinking, animal slain, women degradation, and overall: A REALLY REALLY BAD-OBNOXIOUS-SICKENING-AWFUL MOVIE. Yuck.