Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film.


In what would be his first screenplay, based on his own short story 'Turn About,' William Faulkner delivers a bizarre story of loyalty, sacrifice, and really strange relationships. The story originally was about only the Tone, Young, and Cooper characters, but MGM needed to put Joan Crawford in another picture to fulfill her contract, and Faulkner obliged by creating a female role. Crawford insisted that her lines be written in the same clipped style as her co-stars' Young and Tone, leading to much unintentional hilarity as these three communicate in a telegraph-like shorthand that sounds like a Monty Python sketch ('Wuthering Heights' performed in semaphore). Seriously, the almost entirely pronoun-less sentences make Ernest Hemingway read like Henry James.

The film also reflects some familiar Faulkner themes, with an almost unnaturally close relationship between brother and sister (as may be found in his 'Sanctuary,' and elsewhere). When Young proposes to Crawford, in Tone's presence, in lieu of an engagement ring ALL THREE exchange their childhood engraved rings with one another. The closeness of Tone and Young is also noticeable, especially as they go off to their Thelma & Louise fate. Frankly, it's creepy.

Not as creepy to this New Yorker, however, as the recurring theme of the massive cockroach, Wellington, which Crawford cheerfully catches (and which is shown gamboling over her hands--I had to turn away!) and Young turns into a gladiator. Blech.

That being said, there are some nice performances. Young is particularly engaging in a scene where he's taken up in Cooper's fighter plane, and Roscoe Karns is delightful as Cooper's flying buddy. Tone, despite his inability to express himself through realistic dialogue, has a nice moment, dashing away his own furtive tears over his buddy Young's fate. Crawford, stripped of meaningful dialogue as well, mostly comes across as either wooden or melodramatic, which is quite a balancing act for one role.

The battle scenes--not surprisingly, for a Howard Hawks film--are the most exciting part of the entire picture. But not enough. As far as I'm concerned, this is 75 minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.


Robert Stack never really got over losing a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Kyle in 'Written on the Wind' to Anthony Quinn's 12-minute performance in 'Lust for Life.' Stack plays the deeply disturbed, alcoholic son of an oil tycoon. He has lived his life in the shadow of the friend with whom he was raised, Mitch, played by Rock Hudson. They both love the same woman, Lucy, (Lauren Bacall), who becomes Kyle's wife. Kyle's sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone), is a drunken slut who's in love with Mitch. Their story plays out in glorious color under the able direction of Douglas Sirk, who really dominated the melodrama field with some incredible films, including 'Imitation of Life,' 'All that Heaven Allows,' 'Magnificent Obsession,' and many others.

Make no mistake - this is a potboiler, and Stack and Dorothy Malone make the most of their roles, Malone winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. There's one amazing scene, mentioned in other comments, where she wildly dances to loud music as her father collapses and dies on the staircase. We're led to believe that Marylee sleeps with everyone, including the guy that pumps the gas, because she's in love with Mitch. Mitch wants nothing to do with her. He's so in love with Lucy that, out of loyalty to Kyle, he wants to go to work in Iran to avoid temptation. I doubt he'd be so anxious to get there today no matter how much in love he was.

Hudson and Bacall have the less exciting roles here - Hudson's Mitch is the good guy who's been cleaning up Kyle's messes for his entire life, and Bacall is Mitch's wife who finds herself in a nightmare when her husband starts drinking again after a year of sobriety. Sirk focuses on the more volatile supporting players.

In Sirk's hands, 'Written on the Wind' is an effective film, and the big scene toward the end in the mansion is particularly exciting. The director had a gift for this type of movie, and though he had many imitators, he never had an equal.


had to see this cos it looked like a great scary premise- prisoners finding magic book,oo err! claustrophobic terror ensues, etc.

but there didn't seem to be a story to go along with the great idea. rather than chilling/physcological horror, it relied on effects out in the open- fire and OTT body horror- , which didn't scare at all if your over 12.

The logic at the end is ridiculous, with characters being killed off for nothing other than bodycount. waste of good characters- which were the best thing about this film.

obviously low budget, which doesn't spoil it, the film really goes nowhere, and- icant believe im going to say this- it needs a Hollywood remake. you simply loose interest in this version. definitely not in the same league as other french films coming out in the last few years like crimson rivers which were at least watchable/entertaining, malefique isn't watchable to the end to be honest. and i bet you can guess the ending before you have watched the film. really really disappointing- impossible to recommend.


Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should of directed some more westerns.


Although this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards


Harrison Ford plays Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck of the District of Columbia Police Department. He tries to get the bad guys, but doesn't do a very good job. When we meet up with him he's trying to catch a corrupt undercover officer. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a New Hampshire Senator, Kay Chandler, trying to get reelected. She's running against a candidate who has plenty of money. The last thing she needs is the death of her husband. She's a politician- she can't be bogged down by feelings.

This story moves slowly and painfully. I was looking at my watch every five minutes wondering when it would be over! The story gets lost in details the director, Sydney Pollack, didn't need to put in. We don't want to know about Dutch's police investigations. They throw in some insight to politicians and the spin control' they do for campaigns. After seeing the movie I'm still wondering why they got involved romantically. Doesn't anybody mourn anymore? Don't you need more than two weeks to even consider going horizontal' with someone else?

It was good to see actress, comedian, Chicago native and Second City Alumni Bonnie Hunt. Her role isn't necessarily comic relief, but she was the only one I wanted to see more of. Do yourself a favor, wait for it on video if you want to see it at all.


A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice.


I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and certainly won't get a diploma in 'sex and crime'.

What it derives its tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails. Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM, this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America, the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot.

And this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be 'good businessmen', disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and assassinating politicians in the opera!!

What makes the movie great, however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat 'oriental' flair the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in this movie.

Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a loud orchastra tutti/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy...

All in all: A classic!!


Lou Gossett, Jr. is great as 'Chappy Sinclair', a super U.S. Air Force pilot who comes to the rescue of a nice but undisciplined 'Doug Masters' (Jason Gedrick), the son of a captured pilot who is determined to borrow a couple of F-16 fighters to use in an attempt to save his Dad from a dictator (David Suchet) of an enemy overseas country.

Better than 'Top Gun', this Air Force aviation film has excitement and lots of explosions - you know, all that cool stuff you'd want from a contemporary military adventure film.

Cool music including Twisted Sister's Dee Snider belting out 'We're Not Gonna Take It' and King Cobra's excellent 'Never Say Die'.

Aim High! Air Force!


'The Last Hard Men' is a typical western for the 70's. Most of them seem to be inspired by Sam Peckinpah. Also this one, but Director Andrew McLaglan is a John Ford Pupil and this can be obviously shown in many scenes. IMO the beginning is very good. In a certain way McLaglan wanted to show the audience a travel from the civilization to the wilderness. In the third part there are some illogical flaws and I complain a bit about Charlton Heston. He has to play an old ex-lawman named Sam Burgade but he is in a fantastic physical shape. I never got the feeling that he really has problems to climb on a horse or on a rock. For me he didn't looks very motivated as he usual do in most of his epic movies. Same goes to the beautiful Barbara Hershey who is playing the sheriff's daughter. Maybe both had troubles with the director or were unhappy with their roles. Hershey and Coburn are not showing their best but they are still good. If the scriptwriter had John Wayne in their mind as Sam Burgade? Also Michael Parks as modern sheriff is a bit underused in his role. On the other Hand there is James Coburn as outlaw Zach Provo. Coburn is a really great villain in this one. He is portraying the bad guy between maniac hate and cleverness. His role and his acting is the best of the movie.

Landscapes and Shootouts are terrific. The shootings scenes are bloody and the violence looks realistic. Zach Provo and his gang had some gory and violent scenes. What I miss is the typical western action in the middle of the movie. I would have appreciated a bank robbery or something similar. Overall it's an entertaining western flick. Not a great movie but above the average because of a great Coburn, a very good beginning and some gory and violent scenes.


Like other people who commented on 'Fräulein Doktor' I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.

To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are 'All Quiet On The Western Front', 'Paths Of Glory', 'Gallipoli' and the post-war 'La vie et rien d'autre'). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.

I only wish I had taped the film.


This short was in part four of the 'Short Cinema Journal'--a film I rented from Netflix but which appears to have originally been a monthly film series for people who like mediocre modern short films AND love to have the DVD chock full of commercials. I have so far tried two of the Journal's DVDs and felt enraged at the horrible way that a viewer needs to navigate the disk in order to see the films. Talk about an over-produced and overly complicated way of doing this! While I have and will continue to see as many shorts as I can, I really doubt if I'll bother with the Journals because of these factors.

Now it could be that because I disliked the disk so much that I was not favorably disposed towards this Portuguese animated short. This is definitely possible. However, even if this is the case, I feel that the other reviews were way too positive about this simple little film. Some of the artwork was indeed nice--I liked how the simple black and white drawings suddenly became 3-D environments as the camera went from a dull distant shot and dove into the city below. This was lovely and took some work. But as for the story about a cat who wants to go to the moon, it just did nothing for me.

IMPORTANT UPDATE--I saw this film again on a DVD entitled 'Cartoon Noir' on 5/09. It was a pretty unappealing collection of art films. However, this time I saw THE STORY OF THE CAT AND THE MOON with an entirely different audio track and boy did it make a difference. Instead of Portuguese with subtitles, it had a French accented narrator who spoke English in a Film Noir style. While I usually hate dubbing, this time it really made the film. The narration of the Portuguese version leaves a lot to be desired if you don't know the language or understand the subtleties. Unless you speak the language, try looking for the other version (provided you understand English).


I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.


If anyone has any doubts about the talent of Liev Schrieber, just a look at his new film, 'Everything is Illuminated', which clearly shows a man that is not only one of America's finest actors, but a new director whose first effort is indeed an inspiration and a harbinger of what is to follow. Mr. Schreiber has adapted the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer into a film that will live forever because of the way the director has adapted the material. The film clearly surpassed our expectations since we had no preconceived ideas.

For those who haven't watched the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.

Jonathan is a collector. His love for his grandparents is boundless. He watches as his grandfather dies and as his grandmother is on what appears to be her death bed. On a clear moment, this dying woman gives Jonathan a picture and an amber ornament for his collection. Watching the photograph, taken a long time ago, a young couple are seen together. Watching makes Jonathan think it shows the grandfather and his girlfriend, taken on happier times. Watching the snapshot seems to be the motivation for this intense young man to go looking for his ancestors' past in the Ukraine.

Jonathan has made arrangements with a travel agency, Heritage Tours, of Odessa for his trip to Trochenbrod, the mythical place where his grandfather came from. The agency is handled by an older man, who claims to be blind, and his grandson, Alex, a man who loves the pop American culture that has captured his imagination, as well as his contemporaries in the country. Alex speaks a kind of English no one speaks and his conversation and translation, for Jonathan's benefit are hilarious to our ear for the use of sometimes unheard English terms. The old man insists in taking his dog, Sammy Davis Jr., against the wishes of Jonathan, who doesn't want to sit next to the snarling and barking animal during the trip.

As they embark in search of Trochenbrod, it's clearly that his companions, especially the old man has no clue where he is going. At this point, the film becomes a road movie, as the three characters riding the back roads of the country become more acquainted with one another. As the trio arrive at the sunflower field with the house at the end, it indicates they have indeed come to the right place. Some places are a clear reminder of the conflicts of the past.

The older woman, living in the isolated place, is the missing link of the story. She is able to put things into the right perspective. But here is where the story changes its emphasis from Jonathan, who clearly has come to the land of his ancestors, to the old man. We watch as this older man starts remembering things about himself. This, in turn, changes the dynamic of the film as we discover how connected Jonathan and his guides have been all the time.

Some criticism in these pages have expressed opinions about the accuracy of the story, which after all, it's a work of fiction and liberties have been taken. It would have been impossible to make another film including so much that is contained in the book. The great way the film is divided into different chapters is a clever way to let the viewer know what's about to be seen.

Elijah Wood, a magnificent film actor, does an excellent work by underplaying Jonathan. Mr. Wood makes one of his best appearances in any film with his interpretation of the main character. The felicitous casting of Eugene Hutz as Alex, the Ukranian tour assistant and translator, seems to be an idea made in heaven. Mr. Hutz is about the best thing in the film. His arcane usage of English gives the film a funny angle that delights the viewer. Boris Leskin as Alex's grandfather and driver of the tour car makes a valuable contribution to the film, as well as Laryssa Lauret, who is seen in the last part of the movie.

The excellent cinematography of Matthew Libatique brings the splendor of the Czech Republic's countryside in all its magnificence. The musical score by Paul Cantelon is heard in the background adorning the film in ways that it adds a richness to the movie.

Above all, this is a triumph for Liev Schreiber, the first time director that will surely go far in whatever he decides to do next.


You don't have to spend much time watching this made for TV movie or series pilot or whatever it was intended to be to figure out just what lies in store. The incredibly bad musical score makes its debut from the start. Seriously, if this isn't the worst theme I've ever heard, I certainly can't remember it. While the acting talent is available here, from Jeff Bridges to Carl Betz, Vera Miles, and Sal Mineo, the writing is atrocious and the story is contrived, filled with insipid stereotypes, and an obvious ripoff from Ken Kesey. Why must Hollywood always present tales from the sixties as if the so-called hippies were all unidimensional morons? It's too bad that such an interesting era in our exceptionally conformist social experience is generally depicted by out and out garbage so that the least offensive of the genre is now accepted as reasonably authentic when almost none of it comes even close to the way things really were. The best I've seen to date is a memoir called Looking Back by a guy named Becker, but who else has even heard of it? No one in Hollywood, that's for sure. They're too busy pushing tripe like this groaner of a movie to bother with reality.


- Contains miner spoilers -

I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as 'No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead' is of movie quality.

This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).

The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).

The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.

I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car.


Updating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)

Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film  though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre  but quite fun  performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10.


When I watched this movie in my adolescence, I attempted for the soundtrack. Some bands of the soundtrack I still didn't know. However, during the film, I already noticed her quality. U2, Blondie, Police. , Quincy Jones , Commodores .Sensational soundtrack.

In Brazil, there is a long time this film didn't pass in TV. Today, he passed in cable TV and I remembered to access the site to do the comment.

The End of the film surprised me a lot, but it is what happens in the real life. Not always, what thought about being the ideal, it is what happens.

The life brings us a lot of surprises.


This movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:

********************************************************************

SPOILER DETAILS

********************************************************************

Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.

Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.

Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.

Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the 'male' lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.

In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on.


Geez, another Lifetime movie, but once again isn't exactly the worst movie in the world, but far from the best. I think the main problem is that it's pretty obvious who is responsible for what, and it's generally fairly predictable. Worse yet, some of the flashbacks ended up being confusing, and the viewer is left wondering 'Okay, how much am I supposed to care?' One thing I did like is that the movie goes to show you that it's never THAT simple as 'the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad', and sometimes it IS evil vs evil rather than good vs evil. Hadley didn't do what she did out of a sense of justice, she did it because she considered herself entitled to a job for being family, AND to eliminate the competition. As for Alicia, it simply proves that a victim isn't always a good person. Some of them really do 'have it coming', even if 'it' was a painful, horrible death. 'The Burning Bed' is a great example of this, but the difference is that the vile man in 'The Burning Bed' got exactly what he deserved. But, did Alicia 'have it coming'? Some will say that she did, but others don't agree, and the law generally doesn't either.

As for acting, it's a mixed bag. Some do a good job, like Mia, but others just came across as indifferent to their roles. They were mostly wooden or simply not convincing. The music was pretty cool though and some of the scenes are nice and steamy, especially if you like girl/girl action. The movie isn't badly shot at all, but given its glaring weaknesses, the strengths are in background, unfortunately.

I've heard rumors of a sequel, but given the years, I doubt it'll happen. But, I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel suddenly appeared. If Alicia is as EVIL, conniving and horrible as people say, then I don't think she'll be thinking, 'YAY! I woke up from a coma! Oh, Hadley was responsible? Oh! That's okay! I totally forgive her and want the charges dropped!' No way Hadley would be in jail for long anyway, if she even does any time since no murder actually happened.

Anyway, worth checking out at least once!


There were nice characters in here, played by pleasant-looking actors and actresses, plus it had a famous band and some famous dancers.....yet the film just didn't work. By the time this was almost over, I was bored to death. The dialog was dumb, the humor (mainly Milton Berle's) was downright stupid and the music was just not up my alley.

I've never been a big-band fan, anyway, and if I hear 'In The Mood' one more time I'll puke.

This was my first look at famous skater-actor Sonja Henie and I have no complaints about her. Almost part of the problem, at least with the humor, is that it's so dated it isn't funny anymore. Berle, Phil Silvers, Bob Hope, Red Skeleton, Abbot & Costello, etc. etc. were hilarious to the crowds in the 40s and 50s but humor changes, and what was funny back then is not today.


By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.

 It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.

 This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.


'Joe' is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.

True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away.


I saw this movie about 12 years ago and I can still remember it as if I just saw it recently. That is how much this movie has affected me.

Considering this is a movie from the 50's I think it was ahead of its time. It surprised me as in how it maintains its integrity in this subject some might have considered taboo back then. Very realistic in showing the tumultuous and heartwretching journey that an addict chooses to embark on. One can only imagine how the audiences were affected by the realism of this movie back in those days.

I personally think is was one of Frank Sinatra's top five performances in the big screen.

When others are discussing movies dealing with Mental Illness and/or addiction I always recommend The Man with the Golden Arm as one of the top five to watch.


Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended.


This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.


As you probably already know, Jess Franco is one prolific guy. Hes made hundreds upon hundreds of films, many of which are crap. However, he managed to sneak in an occasionally quality work amongst all the assembly line exploitation. 'Succubus' isn't his best work (thats either 'The Diabolical Dr. Z' or 'Vampyros Lesbos'), but it has many of his trademarks that make it a must for anyone interested in diving into his large catalog. He combines the erotic (alternating between showing full-frontal nudity and leaving somethings left to the imagination) and the surreal seamlessly. This is a very dreamlike film, full of great atmosphere. I particularly liked the constant namedropping. Despite coming off as being incredibly pretentious, its amusing to hear all of Franco's influences.

Still, there are many users who don't like 'Succubus' and I can see where they're coming from. Its leisurely paced, but I can deal with that. More problematic is the incoherency. The script here was obviously rushed, and within five minutes into the film I had absolutely no idea what was going on (and it never really came together from that point on). Those who want some substance with their style, look elsewhere. Also, if its a horror film, it never really becomes scary or even suspenseful. Still, I was entertained by all the psychedelic silliness that I didn't really mind these major flaws all too much. (7/10)


Forget all those people who tell you it's not as good as the book. So what? This is a film after all. It is a sheer joy to watch, made entirely on location in Cephallonia, gorgeous photography but with dark, disturbing moments as well. The only problem I have is with the obvious miscasting of Nicolas Cage as captain Corelli. Apart from that the film was a very pleasant surprise.


Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.)

What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the 'US will save the world' vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the 'sad' ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.

The one good part of this movie: 'American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!'


This version of 'The Lost Horizon' is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!


This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy 'DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY'. There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a 'US' film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.


Tainted look at kibbutz life

This film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, but the deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the first two minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes one of his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of the characters representing typical 'kibbutznikim.' Besides the two main characters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every one else in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of wellevil.

The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowly drags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitably follows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz. Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vice like misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. For example, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome European looking 12 year old boy  his older brother is a typical kibbutz youth complete with his 'jewish' physical appearance and brutish personality. He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of his dying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his little brother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen in a long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote  'Linda, go take shower and I cum in two minutes.'

There is one other 'good' character in this movie  a European foreigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapist tries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breaking the rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for 'violent' behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy: The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacher preaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love and gives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous for the audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing the head of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the little boy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse.

The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children get yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to some ritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by the kibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't 'escape' the kibbutz, although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as they choose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can rest assured, the kibbutz 'drove him to it' and his surviving parents are another pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on the mother and her son.

That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, over dramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keeps trying to hammer itself into the audience's head  that kibbutz life was degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't 'fit in.' I feel sorry for the guy who made this film  obviously he had a bad experience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a few kernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into huge atomic stereotyped bombs.


This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.


This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care.


Since growing up in Czechoslovakia I was following history of RAF pilots and crews in WWII Great Britain, their stories and tragic ending either in the combat or in communist prisons and camps. This is without any doubt more than dark chapter in our history, although the fact that those brave men we're able to go through all this and recover afterward is amazing. To all people who want to see great movie...this is the one! During recent visit of Czech Republic I saw this movie three times in three days (they we're just playing it for three days...otherwise I will go to see it even few more times!!! It's worth of it!) I hope you will enjoy it, although it requires a little more thinking and knowledge of background information behind the story, pretty much same way that the movie 'Kolya' was. It's not a simple movie because of it's deep story, and the way its told will most likely make you crying...it did to me three times in row... Zdenek Sverak did as always a great script, his son Jan made a great movie and the cast? Without doubt all of them did great job, I was amazed by Ondrej Vetchy, by great role played by Oldrich Kaiser and all other actors which made this movie simply GREAT!!! If this is not an Oscar nomination I think that I will be on strike in Holywood.


Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.


If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than 'Grim' or 'Spookies'


I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in 'A Bug's Life'!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)

With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.


Fido is a cute comedy that deserves wider recognition, especially considering the mainstream crap that is supposed to entertain us these days.

As has already been pointed out, this is hardly a real zombie film, but rather a sweet satire that employs the undead to point fingers. While there are necessarily some bloody scenes, there is almost no gore and the way this movie is presented (feel-good 50s style), I can't imagine anyone being actually scared or turned off by Fido & his fellow sufferers.

While the cast is generally good, I felt that Moss and Nelson stood out. The humor is not in-your-face, but rather subdued; there's a lot of attention to detail and I caught myself smiling benignly several throughout the movie. This is certainly no masterpiece of cinema, but it doesn't strive to be - instead, Currie succeeds in delivering a heart-warming black comedy.


It is not as great a film as many people believe (including my late aunt, who said it was her favorite movie). But due to the better sections of this film noir, particularly that justifiably famous 'fun house' finale, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI has gained a position of importance beyond it's actual worth as a key to the saga of Orson Welles' failure to conquer Hollywood.

By 1946 Welles' position as a Hollywood figure was mixed. CITIZEN KANE was not recognized as the great movie it has since been seen as due to the way it was attacked by the Hearst press and by Hollywood insiders themselves. Welles' attempt at total control (direction and production and acting) of his movies seemed to threaten the whole system. His best job in this period was as Edward Rochester in JANE EYRE, supposedly shot by Robert Stevenson, but actually shot in large measure (with Stevenson's blessing) by Welles. But the credit went to Stevenson. Only THE STRANGER, a film benefiting from a postwar interest in fleeing Nazi war criminals, made a profit. For five years in Hollywood it was barely a great record.

Welles returned to Broadway in 1946, hoping to recapture his critical abilities by his production of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. But despite the assistance Mike Todd, and Cole Porter composing the score, the musical was a failure. His failure occurred just at the same time that his wife, Rita Hayworth, was on the rise with her portrayal of GILDA. So the marriage was going on the rocks as well.

Welles had to make money - his Broadway production had led to his personal bankruptcy. He sold his interest in the possible movie rights to AROUND THE WORLD to Todd (which he would eventually rue), and he also sold the idea of a film about the career of Henri Desire Landru to Charlie Chaplin, who was supposed to be directed in it (and who turned it into MONSIEUR VERDOUX).

The story goes that Welles, with a $10,000.00 tax bill to worry about, called Cohn and offered to do a film with Rita for a down payment. Cohn was willing to do so, but naturally asked what the film was. It was a wise question. Welles was on a pay phone in New York in a pharmacy that had a book department. He grabbed a book with the title THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and raved that it was a great thriller. Somehow Welles convinced the normally astute Cohn that Welles knew what he was talking about. Cohn said he'd look into getting the rights, and sent Welles his down-payment of $10,000.00. After Cohn hung up Welles bought the book and read it - and found it was really pretty bad. He spent time rewriting a treatment and screenplay that would build up Rita's character of Elsa Bannister.

Certainly it has a curious plot development. Michael O'Hara is a seaman/longshoreman. He rescues Elsa Bannister, when she is apparently attacked by gangsters in a park in San Francisco. Elsa is married to Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) a crippled criminal lawyer with a great reputation. She convinces him to hire Michael as the skipper of their yacht. The cruise also contains Bannister's sinister partner George Grisby (Glenn Anders) and one Sidney Broome (Ted De Corsia) who turns out to be a detective hired by Bannister to watch Elsa. When they can Michael and Elsa try to find time together, but Broome or Grisby keeps showing up.

Grisby makes Michael an offer - he wants (for reasons connected to his so-called fatalistic view of modern society) to drop out of it, pretending to be dead. According to Grisby (the plot becomes murky here) he can still collect his life insurance (although dead?) and use it to run off to the South Seas. He will pay Michael $10,000.00 if he will pretend to shoot Grisby. This includes actually signing a document admitting to the murder (Michael does not realize that such an admission would wipe out the need to produce a corpse if all the other evidence suggests that Grisby is probably dead).

Of course Grisby is killed, and Michael is arrested for that, and for the murder of Broome (shot with Michael's gun). Michael is tried with Bannister defending him, and discovers that the latter is doing a second rate job because he wants Michael to be convicted. Michael is convinced that Bannister is the actual murderer, and manages to escape just before the jury verdict. He is knocked out and deposited in a deserted carnival, and this leads to the famous 'fun house' sequence and the conclusion of the film.

It's a terribly confusing movie (as I have had commented on). That does not mean it's not worth seeing - visually it is striking. Witness the fight between Michael and the police in the trial judge's quarters, where he knocks the bailiff into the judge's bookcase, shattering glass. Or the clever use of photography to capture Hayworth diving from a rock, reflected on the lecherous Grisby's binoculars.

The acting is pretty good, in particular Sloane (possibly that fine actor's best film role). Glenn Anders was a leading Broadway performer. He rarely made movies before THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and his slimy Grisby is unforgettable. Also Ted De Corsia does very nicely with Broome - a detective who is really looking for his own interests, to his own cost.

As for Hayworth, she turns in a performance that was unlike most of what she had done before (BLOOD AND SAND, TALES OF MANHATTAN, and THE STRAWBERRY BLOND are exceptions), and is a memorable siren. Welles' O'Hara is a very unusual character for the actor - a likable but naive man who learns the hard way not to believe what he secretly wants to believe. It's not KANE, AMBERSOMS, OTHELLO, TOUCH OF EVIL, or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but it is a good film for all that.


I saw 'Rachel's Attic,' thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a '3,' is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and 'Rachel's Attic' isn't one of them.


Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.

PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included.


Doghi is a wonderful movie and Renuka Daftardar is excellent. So is Uttara Baokar who is usually excellent in most of her roles. Along with Kairee, its an example of Marathi cinema at its best. There are certain parts in both movies that tend to the didactic - it would have probably enhanced the movie to not have the few scenes where the social message is hammered in. These scenes probably emerge from the film-maker's political concerns but the movie is realistic and moving enough to not need it. But apart from such minor quibbles, its a movie that deserves to be seen more and one I strongly recommend. Sumitra Bhave's concern and humanism shines through.


A terrorist attempts to steal a top secret biological weapon, and in the process of trying to escape, he is infected when the case containing the deadly agent is compromised. Soldiers are able to retrieve the case, but the terrorist makes his way to a hotel where he attempts to hide out. They eventually make it to where he's hiding, and 'cleanse' the hotel and its occupants. Unfortunately they dispose of his body by cremation, and if you've seen Return of the Living Dead, you know what happens next.

Zombi 3 has been widely panned by critics and zombie fans alike, as a complete mess of a movie. While that's a fair assessment, it's not without it's high points. For one thing, it has plenty of bloody deaths to keep gore-hounds happy. There's an abundance of zombies that seem to come out from everywhere possible. They're in the water, the rafters of houses, hiding in trees, and for some reason, they like to hide under a bunch of dead brush, only to spring out to attack as the heroes try to escape. There's even a flying zombie head that hides inside a refrigerator. You have to see it to believe it, as that scene alone makes Zombi 3 required viewing IMO. It may have some terrible editing and some very questionable acting, especially from the doctor who has to be one of the worst actors I've seen, but Zombie 3 is still a very entertaining movie. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch a movie that doesn't require anything more than your time and an open mind. Zombi 3 fits that bill, and then some. It's even more enjoyable if you pop open a few beers, and watch it with some like minded friends. I give it an 8/10, just because of sheer enjoyment.


This film is not even worth walking to the movie theatre. No jokes, but stupid and boring laughing on repeated disgusting stuff. The music and the girls are great, unfortunately you have to watch the whole movie to enjoy them. It was weak, very very weak.


The 'all I have is 5 dollars and my wedding ring...' scene was a riot. I also guffawed at the scene in the bar where Hyde snorted the horse radish and flipped the bird to the Japanese guy and said 'Pearl Harbor buddy'. I think my IQ is higher than 115, but I'm not sure because I can't count that high.

Funny thing, this 10 line requirement. Seems as though they would bash you for making your comments too long, not too short. I hope I don't make it to 1,000 words before I get to line 10.

I'm still two lines short. Pardon me while I think and drink, or drink and think. It depends on whether my hands are faster than my mind. Good, I think I've made it to the 10 line limit. Thanks for reading!


This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher.


I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled 'exorcism'. So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it!


... And it's a not very good documentary either American MOVIE seems to have confused some people into thinking this is a spoof documentary ( ' Mockumentary ) and even some newspaper TV listings described it as such . I'll not laugh out loud at that because it's easy to mistake this documentary as one big wind up ala THIS IS SPINAL TAP

What seems to have caused the confusion is that the documentary centres around budding film maker Mark Borchardt who is .... How can I put it ? Rather self deluded ? Yes but that's not necessarily a bad thing since if we had no dreams we'd all still be living in caves and the fact that Mark is obsessed with horror movies is not to be taken as a criticism since both Sam Raimi ( Yes that one ) and Peter Jackson ( yes that one ) both started out doing low budget horror comedies so again it's not a criticism . No it's just that Mark Borchardt ( yes that one ) is a parody of American trailer trash

Remember in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY Ben Stiller gives a lift to a dodgy hitch hiker ( ' Come into my office because you're f***in' fired ' ) ? Well that's who Mark resembles along with most of Jerry Springer's guests so it's very easy to see why some people thought this wasn't a real documentary . It's also not a very good documentary since Mark and co give me the creeps . Did you know that someone thought Mark would grow up to be a serial killer ? Does anyone else think there's plenty of time left for this to happen ?


I'm not sure I understand where all these enthusiastically anti-grudge people are talking about here, perhaps it's just that some people like to rant about things.

The movie was certainly imperfect (uneven acting, some may have had difficulties with the time-changes, actors all too willing to go places I'd really rather not go, etc.) but IMHO there were some things that more than made up for the imperfections.

First and foremost, I LOVED the 'breaking of the rules' bit. NORMALLY when you leave the haunted house the baddies leave you alone, giving you time to regroup, get friends, and find the token mysterious paranormal type. NORMALLY (semi-spoiler alert) when you're hiding under the covers they can only get you through that little opening you peek through. NORMALLY at the end the ghosts somehow have become less creepy because you've found out they're just misunderstood, or they've been freed, or whatever.

Secondly, the production was exceptional. While the movie was hardly special-effects-laden the supernatural bits while brief were extremely well done.

Probably not the best sort of movie for those who think Freddy and Jason are the ultimate sort of horror (nothing against 'em, they've got their place), but great for those who've begun to take the conventions for granted and who don't have trouble with the time distortions.


Of the four main players in here - John Candy, Jean Kelly, Amy Madigan and Macauley Caulkin - the only one I've never heard about (at that time) was the one that annoyed the heck out of me and ruined the film. Well, she must have done a decent job of acting to make me want to throw her and the VHS into the garbage pail. I am referring to Kelly in the role of teenage brat, 'Tia Russell.' Ironically, six years later she played a stunning and extremely likable role in the person of 'Rowena Morgan' in 'Mr. Holland's Opus.'

Candy, as usual, is fun to watch as 'Buck Russell,' or the title character, 'Uncle Buck.' Few actors were better at playing a lovable, hapless slob than Candy. I enjoyed his character in here, but I cannot watch that spoiled teen girl more than once. Also, in the first few minutes of the film, the little boy 'Miles' (Cauklin) says the word 'G-damn.' How bad is that, having a six-year-old kid saying the Lord's name in vain on film? These Hollywood people are such sickos. No wonder many of their child actors turn out to be mentally screwed up, Caulkin being a case in point.


I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: 'I always wanted to ski down mount Everest'. This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.

He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?

OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,'The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest' was just too long for the tape box.


A family of dirt-farmers moves out west.

The head of Walnut Grove's newest motley brood is named 'Charles'. He works at the mill sawing lots of lumber, though who in hell he thinks he's cutting all that wood for is a mystery, because none of the folks in all of township have enough money to buy a splinter, much less a two-by-four.

Running the town is the 'Olsons', a rich but stupid clan that relocated to these parts in order to rake in all that dough they make selling eggs for eleven cents a dozen. They have two children, a boy, 'Willie', and a girl, 'Nellie', whom between them, have only one saving asset... Nellie is hot and it's fun to spy on her when she takes a bath in the crick.

The town preacher is also the village idiot because he thinks he's really something special to this backwoods covey of country dillweeds, when in reality, they can't stand his boring sermons and the only thing they pray for on Sunday is for him to fall off the nearest cliff as soon as possible.

The town doctor is a dinosaur who saw his better days about 20 years ago, but he hangs around anyway so he can give free breast examinations to the old hags that live in town. Unfortunately, the only time these ancient hot mamas get down on their knees is to pull a loaf of bread out of the oven to give to the Doc for his services. But that's OK with Doc because he knows these old wenches give good bread.

Bringing up the rear of this colorful collection of country cow-chips is Charles' wimpy wife 'Carolyn' and their three girls, 'Mary', 'Carrie', and 'Half-Pint'. Mary is another hot chick who all the guys sneak a peek at whenever she takes a shower or a crap. Carrie is an annoying little kid, but stick a cookie in her mouth and you won't even know she's there, in fact, where is she?... oh, there she is... she's in the yard playing with a pack of cigarettes... how cute! Half-Pint is the town's youngest screw-up. She may not have a brain or any kind of a body to speak of, but she can spit farther then any boy in the whole freaking school.

It's a great town, Walnut Grove, where someone is always falling off a roof or getting run over by a wagon wheel, and it's beautiful, too, made up of one building... the church/school-house/town hall/pool room. Ah, it gets a little hairy on the prairie, but that's OK, especially when Mary is taking a bath in the crick... that's when you can see how hairy it really is.


In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to 'protect' them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). 'Offside' tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).

'Offside' is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films ('The Shop on Main Street,' 'Loves of a Blonde,' 'Closely Watched Trains' etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the 'Prague Miracle' in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, 'Offside' is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.

Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a 'point.' They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.

It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in 'real time.' Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.

It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. 'Offside' is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, 'Offside' is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007.


Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in 'Living with Happiness.' This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.

It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.

I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.


One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include 'Seven' and 'Silence of the lambs' ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange.


Caught this flick as one of a five-for-$5 deal from a local video store, and it was a most pleasant surprise. It's a collection of four interrelated tales built around four kids who've just had a car wreck and are waiting for someone to pick them up. They tell each other these stories to kill time, and are occasionally startled by flashing lights and funny noises which all come together in an O. Henry-esque ending that left me gleeful. A real discovery. Blood (and plenty of it), breasts and beasts round it all out rather nicely...Jacinda Barrett is worth the price of admission alone. This one is a keeper--Jim Bob says check it out.

Oddly enough, 'Pumpkinhead' was one of our five choices too, and IMDB recommends that for anyone who likes 'Campfire Tales'. I'll followup as soon as I get a chance to sit down and watch that one. Joyeux Samhain!


I have seen the short movie a few years ago. After that I watch all sequels. The first one is really not the best - but it's the most popular one. I've already watch the making of Guinea Pig 1. It's really great what these guys did. Also the sequels are excellent in the special effects. Take your chance to watch it!


It surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks 'Che: Parts 1 & 2'. Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's revolutionary life. 'Che: Part 1' presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. 'Che: Part 2' presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2' focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see 'Che' in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of 'Che' was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly 'too much talk and not enough action' in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing 'Che: Parts 1 &2'. *** Average


I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!


I caught this film late at night on HBO. Talk about wooden acting, unbelievable plot, et al. Very little going in its favor. Skip it.


Its Christmas Eve and lazy and submissive housewife Della (Kim Basinger) receives some violent threats from her troubled and abusive husband. Leaving her twin children in bed she ventures off into the night for one last shopping spree at the local mall. Its busy there and finding a parking space is nigh on impossible, Della takes umbrage at one motorist who parks in two spaces, she leaves them a note saying as much. Returning to her car after visiting the shops she is confronted by some yobs, Yup the owners of the car she left a note on, they are very angry and want some fun with her, a kindly security guard steps into assist her, but things get out of hand and the guard is shot, Della flees with the now murderous yobs in hot pursuit, they shoot at her, she looses control of her car and crashes, quickly grabbing her toolbox from the trunk, she hides in a deserted building site, but is soon caught, just before they try to rape and kill her, from her magical toolbox she produces a wrench, wounding their leader 'Chuckie', she manages to escape again into the nearby woods, in the fracas one of the gang is killed, it just happens to be the black guy Here the night gets worse for all involved as a deadly game of cat and mouse ensues. A similar plot line to Eden Lake drew me to this, but that is where the comparisons end. This is a brainless and dumb film, shockingly scripted and horribly acted by all involved, the doe eyed Disney-esquire twin kids are horrible to watch, but its Lukas Haas as Chuckie, that must take the plaudits in the bad acting department, although he is given a run for his money by the equally awful husband. As a film its plot line is completely telegraphed all the way through, even in the set up early on Della's cell phone goes dead and then in the shops her credit card has been cancelled by her hubby and she has no cash and its Christmas Eve, now where could they be going with this I wonder??? The only surprising part of this $hit is when after killing all the clichéd bad guys with the contents of her magic toolbox, she demands Chuckie to f@ck her, if my jaw had not already been on the floor at this films awfulness, it would surely have dropped and smashed on the floor. even the ending is messed up, all the feminist grannies wanting their pound of flesh are left utterly disappointed.. I didn't think I could be further disappointed, but then I saw that Guillermo del Toro produced this dreck


This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying 'Ahh, I get it!' I muttered something along the lines of 'Okay...whatever.' In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!

The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the 'steamy' love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.

And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.

My recommendation: don't bother!


This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that.


I caught this Cuban film at at an arthouse film club. It was shown shortly after the magisterial 1935 Silly Symphony cartoon where the Isle of Symphony is reconciled with the Isle of Jazz. What with the recently deceased Ruben Gonzalez piped through speakers in this old cinema-ballroom and a Cuban flag hanging from peeling stucco rocaille motifs, the scene was set for a riproaring celebration of engaged filmmaking and synchronised hissing at the idiocies of Helms-Burton. But then the film started. And the cinema's peeling paint gradually became more interesting than the shoddy mess on-screen.

The storyline of Nada Mas promises much. Carla is a bored envelope-stamper at a Cuban post office. Her only escape from an altogether humdrum existence is to purloin letters and rewrite them, transforming basic interpersonal grunts into Brontëan outbursts of breathless emotion. Cue numerous shots of photogenic Cubans gushing with joy, grief, pity, terror and the like.

The problem is that the simplicity of the narrative is marred by endless excursions into film-school artiness, latino caricature, Marx brothers slapstick and even - during a particularly underwhelming editing trick - the celluloid scratching of a schoolkid defacement onto a character's face.

Unidimensional characters abound. Cunda, the boss at the post office, is a humourless dominatrix-nosferatu. Her boss-eyed accomplice, Concha, variously points fingers, eavesdrops and screeches. Cesar, the metalhead dolt and romantic interest, reveals hidden writing talent when Carla departs for Miami. A chase scene (in oh-so-hilarious fast-forward) is thrown in for good measure. All this would be fine in a Mortadello and Filemon comic strip, but in a black-and-white zero-FX flick with highbrow pretensions, ahem.

Nada Mas attempts to straddle the stile somewhere between the 'quirky-heroine-matchmakes-strangers' of Amelie and the 'poetry-as-great-redeemer' theme of Il Postino. Like Amelie, its protagonist is an eccentric single white female who combats impending spinsterdom by trying to bring magic into the lives of strangers. And like Il Postino, the film does not flinch from sustained recitals of poetry and a postman on a bicycle takes a romantic lead. Unfortunately, Nada Mas fails to capture the lushness and transcendence of either film.

There are two things that might merit watching this film in a late-night TV stupor. The first is the opening overhead shot of Carla on a checker-tiled floor, which cuts to the crossword puzzle she is working on. The second is to see Nada Mas as a cautionary example: our post Buena Vista Social Club obsession with Cuban artistic output can often blinker us into accepting any dross that features a bongo on the soundtrack. This film should not have merited a global release - films such as Waiting List and Guantanamera cover similar thematic territory far more successfully.


While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama.

The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.

A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.

7 or 8 out of 10.


This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.


I had never heard of this film till it popped up on cable TV and I can't understand why. Geena outdoes Arnold as an action hero in this film! Geena is an ex-CIA assassin who is brainwashed and given an identity as a schoolteacher with a quiet family life in a rural town. She continues that life for 8 years with a husband and daughter. Clues start coming to her that she may have been someone else, especially when someone tries to kill her. It seems that her former employers have discovered that she never died and want to make sure that she does. She hires Samuel L. Jackson, who is a former police officer. Together they form a pair that is as entertaining as Mel Gibson & Danny Glover. When Geena finally regains her memory she undergoes a transformation into the killing machine she once was with the song 'She's Not There' playing in the background. What follows is Geena and Samuel have to go after the bad guys and hopefully stay alive. All through the rest of the film Geena has to decide who she really is. The killing unfeeling machine? The mother/schoolteacher with the quiet family life? Or a combination of both? Especially, since the bad guys grab Geena's daughter. Great action scenes that rank up with any of the Die Hard movies!


In Cinema Retro magazine #2,it is revealed that Mark Lester's voice was actually dubbed by a 20 year old female, Kathe Green. Although Leste was considered perfect for the title role, director Carol Reed was not at all pleased with his singing abilities. The secret was revealed by on a 2004 UK documentary titled 'Oliver! After They Were Famous'. Greene was paid 400 pounds for her work and she had to agree to keep her participation secret, as did Mark Lester. They kept their word and only revealed this fact as part of the TV show decades after release of the film. For the record, Mark Lester retired from acting and is a practicing osteopath in England.


i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a 'cult classic'...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!


The scintillating Elizabeth Taylor stars in this lesser-known classic as a young girl from London who falls in love with a tea plantation owner from British Ceylon (current day Sri Lanka). Upon arrival she instantly feels out of place and is forced to adapt to the new culture as well as be in constant awareness of the angry elephant herd. William Dieterle, who also directed The Life Of Emile Zola and Portrait Of Jennie , does a masterful job of bringing a somewhat dark, and almost eerie, undertone to this romance and the setting is one of the most beautiful I've seen with the black and white themed mansion and the gorgeous island scenery.


I really enjoyed this movie about the relationships that sometimes developed between American servicemen and Japanese women in post-war Japan--as well as the obstacles that prejudices created for them. Brando goes from having contempt for the Japanese (which is natural considering WW2) to falling in love with a Japanese woman and wanting to marry her. His performance is okay (I am not a major fan of his acting style) and the movie is marvelous throughout. Red Buttons received an Oscar for his touching performance of another GI who falls in love in Japan (though the Japanese women who plays opposite him also did a remarkable job).

I don't want to spoil it but the movie is a good one to watch with a box of tissues.

This movie manages to say SOMETHING and be entertaining at the same time. A mostly underrated gem.


I am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. 'Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?' But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist.


This is a modest, character driven comedy, filmed in Brazil on a low budget. The premise is familiar, the same as in the 1950's Danny Kaye movie **On the Double**: someone who, as a joke, does an impression of a Famous Person then is dragooned to impersonate the Person for real.

The contrast between the two leads is highly effective. Raul Julia as the German-Paradorian secret policeman, is tall, cool, menacing and Latin. He sports a deliberately obvious blond dye job. Richard Dreyfus, animated, short, New York Jewish, is funny and sympathetic. There are many references and inside jokes about show business.

The setting is clearly modeled on Paraguay. Paraguay was indeed ruled from the early fifties to the late eighties by Gen. Alfredo Stroessner, an unelected military dictator whose father had emigrated from Germany. But writer/director Mazurszky reveals his ignorance of local conditions when he paints Parador/Paraguay as a typical Latin American tyranny, with huge disparities in wealth and an active guerrilla insurgency. Further in this vein, Mazursky casts comic Jonathan Winters as an American retiree who in truth is C.I.A. station chief in Parador and a figure so powerful that he can give the president of the country a profanity-laced chewing out.

In fact the U.S. has little influence in Paraguay, which is largely without the social and racial tensions seen elsewhere in the region. This is due to the country's having fought long and costly wars against much larger neighbors in the 19th and 20th centuries. The male population was nearly wiped out both times but the society that emerged was patriotic, racially homogeneous and strongly united.

On yet another level, there is a bow to feminism in the form of the character Madonna. Played by Brazilian actress Sonia Braga, Madonna is a former nightclub dancer who is the body-stockinged presidential pleasure girl at the film's start but is seen on television as president herself at the end--now politically and cosmetically correct, no makeup, hair demurely pulled back, swept to office by a velvet revolution.

The one time that such an event actually happened in Latin America, the administration of Argentina's Isabel Peron (not the beloved Evita, who never held office) lasted two years after the death of her husband, legendary **supremo** Juan Peron.


I have never danced flamenco before, but somehow I feel like this movie was perfect. The colors, how blatant the dances were, the gypsies, and the rivals all put together made a movie that seemed to have ended too soon. I have seen other Carlos Saura movies and I agree that this film may be his best production. I feel that the best characteristics of his past films were put together and aligned to make Iberia. I appreciate the use of mirrors in revealing the activity going on behind the cameras. While watching this movie I felt like I was sitting in a small restaurant in Madrid, comfortably watching the dancers bang on a wooden plank over a delicious fruit cocktail. For me, this movie fit like a glove. I don't know how I will be able to get a copy of this film in the US in the next few years. I recommend this movie to anyone who is attracted to the livelihood of other cultures. It is safe to say that this movie is certainly on my favorites list.


This is a cute film starring Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat from the 'Our Gang' comedies. Set in the South during the Civil War, it may seem a little odd to see Buckwheat as Spanky's slave, but this film is as charming as the best of the shorts with the same cast. This was the only Our Gang feature film, and I highly recommend it over The Little Rascals remake from 1994.