The second attempt by a New York intellectual in less than 10 years to make a 'Swedish' film - the first being Susan Sontag's 'Brother Carl' (which was made in Sweden, with Swedish actors, no less!) The results? Oscar Wilde said it best, in reference to Dickens' 'The Old Curiosity Shop': 'One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of Little Nell.' Pretty much the same thing here. 'Interiors' is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers. ('I'm afraid of my anger.' Looking into the middle distance: 'I don't like who I'm becoming.') The directorial quotations (to use a polite term) from Bergman are close to parody. The incredibly self-involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are, to the point of strangulation. ('I read a poem of yours the other day. It was in - I don't know - The New Yorker.' 'Oh. That was an old poem. I reworked it.') Far from not caring about these people, however, I found them quite hilarious. Much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from Allen's earlier films - only he's directed his actors to play the lines straight. Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in 'Celebrity').

The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's 'Winter Light,' the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst. It all comes through in the shopworn visual/aural tricks: the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper, the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach. etc, etc.

Allen's later 'serious' films are less embarrassing, but also far less entertaining. I'll take 'Interiors.' Woody's rarely made a funnier movie.


A Chinese Ghost Story stars the late, great Leslie Cheung as Ling Choi Sin, a penniless tax collector who decides to spend the night at a deserted temple, where he meets and falls for a beautiful woman called Tsing (Joey Wang). When Ling discovers that Tsing is actually a ghost who has been forced to seduce victims for an evil tree spirit who feeds on 'chi' (life force), he decides to try and free the girl by giving her remains a proper burial. Enlisting the help of Swordsman Yin (Wu ma), a crazy Taoist monk, Ling successfully defeats the tree spirit, but must also do battle in hell against the evil Lord Black, to whom Tsing is due to be wed.

The first Hong Kong film that I saw which wasn't purely martial arts action, A Chinese Ghost Story opened my eyes to the incredible world of Asian fantasy horror, a magical realm inhabited by beautiful female ghosts, bumbling innocent heroes, sword wielding Taoist monks, monstrous spirits, and dark lords of the underworld; I instantly fell in love with the film's exuberance, energy, humour, inventiveness and visual excellence.

Two decades later, and this amazing movie still remains one of the finest examples of its genre that I have seena sumptuous, breathtaking masterpiece that brilliantly blends horror, comedy, fantasy and romance. With superb direction from Siu-Tung Ching, excellent editing from David Wu, stunning cinematography, and a whole slew of imaginative special effects (including a humongous killer tongue, a many tentacled monster, and multiple flying heads!), A Chinese Ghost Story is a completely unforgettable and thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish.


Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.

While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.

I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!

I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy.


Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...

Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with 'Assault on Precinct 13.'

Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.

'Assault on Precinct 13' takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...

There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.

FINAL RATING: 1

(Only because I have seen worse films.)


As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).

I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf.


Hollow Man starts as brilliant but flawed scientist Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) finally works out how to make things visible again after having been turned invisible by his own serum. They test the serum on an already invisible Gorilla & it works perfectly, Caine & his team of assistant's celebrate but while he should report the breakthrough to his military backers Caine wants to be the first invisible human. He manages to persuade his team to help him & the procedure works well & Caine becomes invisible, however when they try to bring him back the serum fails & he remain invisible. The team desperately search for an antidote but nothing works, Caine slowly starts to lose his grip on reality as he realises what power he has but is unable to use it being trapped in a laboratory. But then again he's invisible right, he can do anything he wants...

Directed by Paul Verhoeven I rather liked Hollow Man. You know it's just after Christmas, I saw this a few hours ago on late night/early morning cable TV & worst of all I feel sick, not because of the film but because of the chocolates & fizzy pop I've had over the past week so I'll keep this one brief. The script by Andrew W. Marlowe has a decent pace about but it does drag a little during the middle & has a good central premise, it takes he basic idea that being invisible will make you insane just like in the original The Invisible Man (1933) film which Hollow Man obviously owes a fair bit. It manages to have a petty successful blend of horror, sci-fi & action & provide good entertainment value for 110 odd minutes. I thought the character's were OK, I thought some of the ideas in the film were good although I think it's generally known that Verhoeven doesn't deal in subtlety, the first thing he has the invisible Caine do is sexually molest one of his team & then when he gets into the outside world he has Caine rape a woman with the justification 'who's going to know' that Caine says to himself. Then of course there's the gore, he shows a rat being torn apart & that's just the opening scene after the credits, to be fair to him the violence is a bit more sparse this time around but still has a quite nasty & sadistic tone about it. Having said that I love horror/gore/exploitation films so Hollow Man delivers for me, it's just that it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Director Verhoeven does a great job, or should that be the special effects boys make him look good. The special effects in Hollow Man really are spectacular & more-or-less flawless, their brilliant & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There's some good horror & action set-pieces here as well even if the climatic fight is a little over-the-top. I love the effect where Kevin Bacon disappears one layer at a time complete with veins, organs & bones on full show or when the reverse happens with the Gorilla. There's a few gory moments including a rat being eaten, someone is impaled on a spike & someone has their head busted open with blood splattering results.

With a staggering budget of about $95,000,000 Hollow Man is technically faultless, I can imagine the interviews on the DVD where some special effects boffin says they mapped Bacon's entire body out right down to he last vein which they actually did because you know everyone watching would notice if one of his veins were missing or in the wrong position wouldn't they? The acting was OK, Bacon made for a good mad scientist anti-hero type guy.

Hollow Man is one of hose big budget Hollwood extravaganzas where the effects & action take center stage over any sort of meaningful story or character's but to be brutally honest sometimes we all like that in a film, well I know I do. Good solid big budget entertainment with a slightly nastier & darker streak than the usual Hollywood product, definitely worth a watch.


This ranks as my favorite movie of all time. It's the best spoof of a science fiction movie ever; the fact that it was a sendup of Star Wars just made it all the better.

I love slapstick. Think of this as the Marx brothers or the Three Stooges meet Star Wars. The writing is hilarious. The effects are a hoot. The free association that goes on guarantees all sorts of things coming out of left field. (I almost wet my pants when the Wookie Monster accosted the Princess.)

Space Balls was a much longer movie, but only had about 15 minutes of good material in it, and I felt sort of ripped off afterwards, like buying a burger that turned out to be mostly filler. Hardware Wars, despite being only about 15 minutes long, would be worth paying a feature price, IMO.


I am an addict of the TV show, the live shows and everything they do. And this was the last piece of work they have done on TV/film as 'The League of Gentlemen'.

If you love the series then you will absolutely love the film. It is a nice ending to their TV series.

It is clever and funny.

Although it does not focus on some of the most popular characters, it is still great to see all the characters together and with the writers. A must see for any League of Gentlemen fan.

Watch it!


As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, 'I came for the science.' This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming 'The Birds' but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.

However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.

The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of 'B' movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.

This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.

If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.

One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, 'wait for Tom' as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.

As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, 'my goal is to evolve the human species' - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about.


Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.

The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.

Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.

One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.

Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants.


It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of 'Titanic'.)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?

This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.)


I wouldn't dare say this film is better than the original, but it is very good in it's own right. The comedy in this film is just as good as the original though, there are so many scenes that get me laughing just thinking about them.

The story in this film is even more bizarre than the original, but that's what makes it so great. Peter Hewitt does a great job directing this film with a great cast. The core cast from the original film returns to their characters in this film and all do a fantastic job with their roles. I don't care what anyone says, I think Keanu Reeves is a great actor! I really enjoyed his portrayal of Ted in both of these films as I did Alex Winter's Bill. I was very happy to see George Carlin returning to the role of Rufus, very cool! Hal London Jr, who plays the part of Ted Logan's father does a really good job. The scene where Ted possesses his fathers body and Hal London Jr begins acting like Ted is a great scene, and he pulls it off impressively well. I can't forget to mention William Sadler as Death, he completely made the movie for me. The rest of the cast is quite good as well.

If you liked the first installment of the Bill and Ted series, then I would hope you would like this film as well. But, don't expect it to be as good as the original. I really hope you enjoy the film, thanks for reading,

-Chris


I picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of 'Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom'. Unfortunately I was in for a virtual yawn. Not like any yawn i have had before though. This yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. The cover described amazing special effects. There were none. The movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. It does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. Good if you want to teach your kids that. I don't. Keep away from this one. If you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere.


I have read the other comment about this movie, and usually I try not to be harsh in my criticisms because I try to be a nice person. However, this movie is one of the worst movies that I have EVER seen (And thats topping a lot of bad USA Network plus Cinemax nights.) Whoever thought of this movie needs to be prevented from EVER making another one. This film disgusted me in a way that no other film ever. I REALLY think these people are insane. Just save your time and do not watch this fllm. Please - I wish that I had. The acting is horrible, the plot (what plot) is STUPID and degrading and insane. I really do not think this should have been made into a movie. But that is my opinion, and I am trying to save you from wasting your time.


Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a 'good movie.'


Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.

There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious!


This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.

A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.

Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!

The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout.


Not too many people seem to know about this movie. Which is too bad because I think it's pretty good. Sure it is a bit cheesy at times and may have a predictable storyline. But the presentation of the movie is pretty well done. I think the casting is good with likeable actors/characters. Tom Selleck does a good job at playing a baseball player (go figure... not too much of a stretch I suppose) and Ken Takakura (from Black Rain) plays the chief (the coach of the Japanese baseball team). There isn't too much to complain about. It's just a light, easy-going, happy comedy and I recommend it.


Egads.

I used to think Keannu Reeves was the worst actor in Hollywood. I not so sure anymore, Willy gives Keannu some stiff competition with his 'I'm made of plaster' performance in this movie.

Combine that with the fact that there is almost no plot, and not a single likable character, and it's pretty hard to recommend this turkey.

Natasha tries her best, but even Julia Roberts couldn't save this flick from obscurity.

Avoid it unless it's really late and there's nothing else on. -Oh heck, in that case just read a book.


This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. It seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. Given how socialistic Sweden eventually became, the 'radicalism' of its politics, once controversial, appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. And its sex scenes, at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials, look pretty tame in a modern context. Nevertheless, the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60's youth rebellion. One part of the film that still holds up: its self-consciousness with respect to the 'fourth wall'. Every once in a while, the filmmakers film themselves making the film. The satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle.


Stack should have received the Academy Award for this performance, period. Its a crime that he did not. Amazing how he humanizes a rich worthless character.

Dorothy Malone did earn a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance. In fact, all of the acting in this film is excellent.

The plot begins with a taxi ride, then an airplane ride, then keeps moving on an emotional ride that will hold your interest throughout. You will be entertained!

However, this is only a blatant soap opera. One-dimensional, 100-percent soaper. You might call it the ultimate soaper, because the acting so thoroughly triumphs over the material. Excellently acted, well directed, but strictly within its soap genre. I wouldn't even call it a melodrama (such as 'Mildred Pierce' or 'Imitation of Life'). While not denying the great entertainment value of this film, you can only imagine what this talented cast and director might have achieved with more substantial subject matter.


The original show was so much better. They should have left on a good note. This movie killed the whole idea. It was boring, over-dramatic, and the funny parts were too far in between to make up the slack. This movie really seemed like it was trying way too hard to be serious, and that was definitely not what I was wanting from this sequel. Not to mention, that for a long time it was just depressing about the same thing over and over again. So, sorry, Tyler Perry, but try harder next time. This movie is just kinda dull, and not that funny either. Sorry. 4/10 stars is it.

Jay Addison


It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching 'The Wind.' Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting 'ad peliculam' with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.

To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked 'Cold Hearts', 'Midnight Mass,' 'Jugular Wine,' etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated 'The Wind.'

The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem.

Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the 'lambent sex goddess,' or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.

Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the 'atrocities' presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.

The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either.

As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure 'shock' and/or 'dangerous art' value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from 'mediocrity warranting criticism' to 'film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue.'

So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition.


Oliver Hardy awakens with a hangover and soon learns that his uncle is coming to see Ollie's new wife and baby. The problem is, they don't exist--Ollie apparently made them up! So, it's up to him and his pal to locate a lady with a baby who will agree to pose as his family.

This isn't a particularly unique story idea, as I've seen at least a couple other silent shorts with this exact plot. The best of these was Bobby Vernon's DON'T KID ME. It is much better than ONE TOO MANY--probably much of this was due to it being made a decade later--when comedy became a bit more sophisticated and relied less on pointless slapstick. Now I am not against physical comedy, but in some slapstick films, people starting shooting guns wildly, kick and strangle each other, etc. with little provocation. Sadly, at the end of ONE TOO MANY, that's exactly what they do. None of it makes sense and it was as if they'd just run out of story ideas.

Overall, not exactly a milestone in entertainment. There's just not enough payoff to merit watching it unless you are an obsessive silent fan like myself.


Ghoulies IV may not be the best out of the series but it isn't too bad, if you don't take it fully serious then you may enjoy it.

It's nice to see Peter Liapis return as Johnathan Graves who has gave up using magic and has became a Detective but still thinks about what happened in Ghoulies.

The plot is about a woman named Alexandra that is Johnathan's ex-girlfriend that breaks into a museum and takes a red gem, using the gem she awakens her boyfriend named Faust that is Johnathan's dark side but he needs the gem so he can enter the real world and John is sent to hell.

Something goes wrong and Alex loses the gem so she needs to find a new one, as she leaves the gateway is still open and two little Ghoulies named Lite and Drak appear. They're not the true Ghoulies since they look like guys in a Troll costume wearing a mask but that doesn't matter since they are humorous in parts.

Lite and Dark need to find Johnathan since he can return them home so they go around causing mayhem as they try to find Johnathan. Another difference is that the two Ghoulies are the good guys unlike the ones in the previous films.

I found Ghoulies IV to be good but this film may not go for everyone, check it out if you like low budget films like Troll 2.


I don't know what the makers of this film were trying to either accomplish or say, but they badly failed at whatever it was. Unless of course the object was to totally confuse the viewer. I watched this movie simply because Drew Barrymore was in it, and it turned out that she had a smaller than small cameo in it. The whole idea of having this kid go on some wild car trip to win a big money prize from a gas station game and meet up with all sorts of wackos is utterly ridiculous.


This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.

Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.

How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.

We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.

Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.

Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.


Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the 'weird' outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.

Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.

Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.

Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.

What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.

But hey, at least the set's pretty.


If ever there were an inspiring story that could move anyone, disabled or not, to persevere despite the odds and make it (even when 'make it' as an expression, proper, can have a wide berth which is an ultimately personal truth), MY LEFT FOOT is it. It's a hard film to watch at times: seeing the less placid aspects of Christy Brown's personality emerge in two key scenes -- one when his sister declares she is pregnant and about to get married while his father has a bad reaction, and at a dinner table when the woman who's reached out to him, made him able to communicate effectively, now has announced at a key moment (the inauguration of Brown's art) she is about to marry another man -- is tough. Very, very tough. More so because this is a man who cannot react accordingly to these events and can only express himself in the only way he knows how: via screams, shrieks, and profanities aimed at hurting himself. However, this is not a story of heartache and family dysfunction even when there is quite a bit of it furnishing the autobiographical account, but that of a man overcoming his severe disability, becoming a functioning human being and a force of be reckoned with in the art world. Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for his powerful, unforgettable performance as the flawed but tenacious Christy Brown, and Brenda Fricker did so as well for her supporting role as Brown's solid mother.


'The Cat's Meow' contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible.

Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in 'Paper Moon', lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., 'Yes, We Have No Bananas'). When Hearst insists everybody 'Charleston, Charleston!' it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot.

The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time.


At least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange

directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging.


I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired)  where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from  in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else  in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being 'deadly boring'  an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare!

Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days  of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember)  where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972])  the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).

While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace  and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme  adopting orange/red/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).

With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb  lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.

I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location)  namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plotexcept that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called 'Footsteps On The Moon' (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself)  amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future)  and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface!

The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing  though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of 'Carmen' titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968)  also with Nero and Kinski  as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matinée broadcast of it)but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly!


This is the middle cartoon of the three (between Rabbit Fire and Duck! Rabbit, Duck!) and is the weakest of the three, while still being quite funny. It simply depends on one gag for too much of the action. Still a good cartoon. I feel a definite sympathy for Daffy in this one, which is rare for me. Daffy is so clearly overmatched that it almost becomes painful to watch at times. Good cartoon in an excellent series. Recommended.


It's funny... one day before i have seen this movie i had been watching a documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, so comparison kind of came automatically... of course there isn't any :)

 This movie is weak in every aspect... acting is not convincing (especially the one who plays Simona...) and unnatural..., editing in confused and always leaves a taste of unfinished shot, music doesn't fit, the story doesn't flow, it gets boring and the movie comes out much longer as it is... oh, and the characters aren't very well shown, you actually can't tell much about the girls (except what you see)... The movie also tries to shock with explicit cursing (which is very laughable :)

So... 2/10


I believe there are two angles to the story, first, it's the world satyric view, presented in an obvious Kafkaesque manner, underlining the sordid spectacle behind some of life's most common, but also pleasant, or comfortable moments and elements, which are usually enough to keep man functioning in society. Like: a good job, a good home, a good wife, a good car, and even a good mistress. Apart from this so called common bliss, there are some, who cannot help asking themselves some more uncomfortable questions, like, where they come from, or weather they can have some other form of bliss, weather there could be a reason for them being or weather there could be something they missed out on, or, even more sinister, weather there could be something the system itself is withholding from them.

Second, the most interesting aspect of this film, I believe, is the fact that it attacks head-on this natural compulsion to dissect the world around us, questioning it by our personal judgment, and usually condemning it because it doesn't serve us better, because it's not tailor-made to suit us as a person.

The symbolism behind the train-accident, I believe suggests that our own will can be overpowered by fate or some other universal greater power, even in the face of our so called power to decide when we want out. Instead the man gets to be dismissed by this greater power(let's call it THE SYSTEM, because the authors clearly avoid calling it GOD, perhaps further underlining that the SYSTEM is MAN - made and therefore can be mastered by man, unlike FATE, which is a concept closer to religion) on it's own terms, not by killing him, but by showing him that there is a place for the man who asks/wants too much, suggesting maybe, that true fulfillment does not come from the outside world, but from within, and if the outside world 'decides' to provide you with some comfort, you should learn to accept it, without questioning the fabric of every little aspect of it.

Unconfortable, but makes you reevaluate some existential questions which have become mainstream in the last century, like what can man do in a world increasingly drained of substance, a consumer-driven world in which man can be interchanged without making a difference to the bigger picture, but only as long as he is of some use to the system.


I have seen this movie plenty of times and I gotta tell ya, I've enjoyed it every single time. This is Belushi's pinnacle movie in my opinion. Belushi and Lovitz are so likable and identifiable with the common man that you can't help but get involved once you start watching. The movie has a wonderful cast of stars, some already were big, and others were just getting started. It's billed as a feel good movie, and that's exactly what it is. This movie teaches you that life isn't always so bad after all. Sometimes you've just gotta look at stuff in a different perspective to fully appreciate what you already have. When you're done watching, you'll appreciate the things you have a lot more and you'll also be smiling. You can't ask for much more from a movie in my opinion, not to mention it's a hilarious movie and you'll never lose interest. Very Very underrated movie here folks.

Rating from me: 10 I am out!!!


Aside from the fact that this movie was filmed mostly in Rockport MA, which is a beautiful town where my mother once rented a small storefront and I spent many a pleasant summer as a child, it is fun and cute little film.

I must admit that I had no desire to actually see this movie even though I have a weakspot for romantic comedies (I don't know why). The trailers I saw were not appealing, the cast did not look that interesting and I had no idea what the plot would be about. In the end I found it to be an interesting meditation on relationships and family. I thoroughly enjoyed myself and must admit that I thought that this film was one of the most overlooked gems of last year. I am disappointed that so few people seemed to have enjoyed the very 'human-ness' that this movie presented the viewer with.

I have read many bad reviews of this film, and must admit a certain level of shock at the cynicism that is prevalent in them. As a grad student I consider myself to be quite cynical, but this was a beautiful little film that deserves much better than it got.


I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles.


This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than 'Before Sunset', which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is 'love' in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes 'Before Sunrise' so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch 'Before Sunrise' before watching 'Before Sunset'. If like me, you watched 'Sunset' first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best.


I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.)

So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read 'more'. There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was 'less than a 4.0'.

This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.


I found the first 90 minutes of this film to be very interesting, even though a few parts of it were ridiculous (i.e.. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character). The last 60 minutes were distasteful and I began to lose interest in the film. The last hour lasted forever, it seemed.

The movie is nicely acted and I can see why Rene Zellweger won an Academy Award since her character was so interesting. The movie also is beautifully filmed and the story is an emotional one. However, I found the message to be a bad one: not surprising these days in Hollywood. In this story, 'Inman' (Jude Law) deserts the Confederate Army during the Civil War. His reason: his girlfriend misses him and wants him home. He's also getting disillusioned with war. (Can you imagine if every soldier who was in a similar boat deserted the army in the two world wars??!)

Yet, in this film of course, all of that is perfectly acceptable. Then again, what Liberal filmmaker has ever had a nice thing to say about the U.S. military?? To add to their left-wing slant, they portray a vigilante-like posse going after deserters as cold-blooded sick killers. Well, in the world of films, as we know: good is portrayed as bad and bad is good.....and only Liberals would portray deserters as heroes.


Being a fan of the series I thought, how bad can the movie be? Well I got my answer. Some movies should never be made. Why call it a remake of the series when the only similarities are that there are three main characters. The Pete character in the series wasn't a whiney little baby as portrayed in the movie. The only good thing in this movie besides the music and that Clare Danes is pretty was that it was short. What's with that dance scene??? The only reason I didn't walk out of this film was because it was so bad it got funny. Maybe that was the plan! It's really bad when a cheap 60's TV show is better then a 90's 20 million dollar film. El Mariachi cost only $7000 and is a much better film. Don't even waste your money when it comes out on tape, it's not even worth renting.


I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister Örnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.

The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.

Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.

I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.

Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators


This film is 'riveting' but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better 'experts' to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands.


You could tell from the opening shot of the conveyor belt in the bank that this was going to be a great film.

A touch minimalist in feel with a twist of retro this film oozes style -the brilliant camera-work, acting, script and the manner that the secret life of the protagonist unfolds all complement each other in possibly making the best Italian film I've ever seen (up there with La Stanza Del Figlio - albeit different).

Shame on the people sitting behind me who made it obvious that they couldn't see the relevance of the slow but painfully beautiful scenes meticulously crafted by the camera. Don't miss.


Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like 'the Omen' but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even 'the Blairwitch project' was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in 'The Butterfly effect' stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...


This movie was amazing. I was in tears by the end of the movie. Okay, I know the acting sucked but that's not what was important. The message came through loud and clear about God's love for us and Jesus's sacrifice. The movie was realistic and showed actual human feelings whether it be Pete's anger of the blond girl's sneers or the guy that asked questions. But it also showed the joy that comes from a true relationship with Christ. The cars were awesome and the actors were very hot and that attracted my eye. But what I liked most about this movie was the clear Gospel message. The mother and pastor supported Ben in his new walk with Christ and tried to be a godly example to others. Nicky D showed that no matter if you have all the world has to offer, without Christ, it doesn't matter. Nina showed how a misguided but good person can easily miss the mark. I loved this movie and think that it will bring many teenagers to Christ.


All the right elements seemed to conspire here to make this a memorable thriller for years to come. You have the stellar cast - Michael Douglas in an uncharacteristic 'free-spirit' role that pretty much launched his movie career, Fonda playing her typical forthright female doing her bit for womens lib, and Jack Lemmon as assured as ever showing us a man with a crisis of confidence. Give them a hot-button topic about big business being duplicitous, and that's encouraging for a kickoff, but to have life imitating art so soon after is a marketing man's dream.

The script is impressively taut, intelligent but mercifully keeping the jargon to a minimum, and there is a genuine sense of sustained tension brought in play by the director as our three protagonists race to beat the clock. If you like 'whistle blowing' dramas, then this is not quite as good as 'The Insider', but the whole thing is more than nervy enough.


I sincerely wonder why this film was ever made. A Bulgarian-Italian co-production set in a version of Berlin where all Germans speak English with a German accent and all Turks speak English with some Turkish words in between, is hardly credible. The English vocabulary is basically limited to 'fuck you, bastard' and the acting is worse than anyone can imagine. Apart from this, racial tensions in Germany can be an interesting subject but in the Germany I know there are no gangs shooting each other in the middle of the street in clear daylight. And if all that is not enough, there is also a serial killer going around who kills Turkish children and paints them white. In order to create some tension, we see the serial killer and hear him hum Schubert's lullaby but we won't see his face.

I don't even believe they actually shot it in Germany. There are some street shots that are quite obviously in Berlin, but the actors are not seen in those shot. It's probably Bulgaria with some German signs added here and there.


As an native of Bolton, this film has obvious appeal for me. The location shots are fascinating and show a Bolton very much in transition - there are a number of scenes of apparent dereliction but this serves to show the town being rebuilt - and the idea that the old must make way for the new is right at the heart of this film. A slightly miscast James Mason leads an enjoyable ensemble in a story about a fuss over a herring that spirals into a full-blown generational conflict, then a pleasingly schmaltzy resolution. Though I'm a bit too young to remember it fully, the minutiae of Lancashire life in the 60s is all here: cashing up on a Friday, songs round the piano, the Sunday constitutional, good neighbourliness, the trepidations of courtship, the massive importance of self-respect, and I was pleased to see Naughton's funniest lines from the play left intact. There is no doubt that this film ought to be made available on DVD - it is well crafted and most performances are well realised.


This is right up at the top of my list of the most hysterically funny shows I've ever seen. I laughed so hard, I'm sure I missed half the jokes. This showcases Izzard as the brilliantly gifted comedian he is. What I particularly like is that he seems never to be 'dumbing down' the material for his audience. His timing is impeccable and the routine is tied together as a performance piece rather than just a series of gags. Thumbs way up.


The movie is very realistic. Absolutely, it does not belong to the Hollywood Cinema genre where every line must be pronounced in a perfect manner and where every move is precise. The actors playing the roles of the lovers do a GREAT job representing the characters' feelings and thoughts - their everyday life adventures. Overall, the movie climaxes the viewer to a depressed state. This is where the realism of the whole story is apparent. Not everything happens the way we think it should happen. I can say though that the movie does not end on a bad note. We watch, we learn, we experience ourselves. That is probably the moral of this story.


This show uses a rather tired sitcom formula of the fat idiot blue collar slob with the pretty (and sometimes shrewish-seeming) wife and crazy in-law(s). With this show, it's fat unfunny comedian Kevin James as Doug Hefferman who works as a delivery driver for a parcel service. He has a pretty wife, Carrie (Leah Remini), who works as legal assistant, and senile father-in-law, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in his daughter and son-in-law's basement. Kevin James' Doug is your typical beer drinking, sports loving, TV watching slob of a sitcom husband who would rather watch the tube than deal with his marital issues. He also has a couple of idiot friends who lend extra stupidity to the problems encountered by this show's couple. Beyond the few laughs supplied by Jerry Stiller's crazy old man character this show was generally unfunny. Kevin James' imbecilic behavior usually caused the show's problems that usually resolved by his wife. This show continued a run of sitcoms with the fat stupid father/husband and their pretty wives that all seemed to run on ABC for some reason.


Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a 'friend'...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they 'truly believe they can walk on water' enough to take that guidance to it's 'logical' conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong '1' on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it.


this movie was really bad. it has that quality that a lot of indie movies have: moments of humor filled with long spaces that are completely boring. Any die-hard BAM magera fan will prolly like this movie, but then again thats probably the only person who would see it. someone gave me this movie to watch knowing i am a fan of Jackass and was a fan of viva la bam, before the scripted nature of that show wore thin. To explain why this movie doesn't work i should just say the premise itself is played out

a guy who is with a girl who is horrible to him. And pretty much the whole movie you've got this Ryan Dunn guy whining and Bam magera skipping around like a merry mischief maker. Dicamillo's performance is strange at best. It's a humorous little nonspecific Canadian french accent that pretty much is the extent of his performance (basically funny for 5 minutes and then its like 'ok you're pretending to be foreign enough already')

Maybe it would work if they were going for parody but all they succeed in doing is making a movie with an IQ of zero. I love toilet humor as much as the next guy, but this isn't even lowbrow its just stupid. Its like the only humor to be gotten from this movie is completely inside and the audience, even those savvy to Magera and company, are left out of the joke.

Next time magera is handed a sack full of money let's hope he doesn't blow it on some lousy pet project


I enjoyed the beautiful scenery in this movie the first time I saw it when I was 9 . Dunderklumpen is kind of cute for kiddies in a corny way. It reminded me of HRPUFFINSTUFF on sat mornings, Its Swedish backdrops make it easy on the eyes . Don't expect older kids to be interested as the live action/animation is way behind the times and most older kids will get bored.This is definitely an under 10 age set movie and a nice bit of memories for those of us who were little kids in 1974.


Dr Mordrid is terrifying. I would not recommend any adult or child see this unless they are rampaging murderers already. There is so much filth in this movie it hurts my yes. Speaking of eyes, there are eyes in the sky, against a backdrop of stars. Only the devil himself could have imagined such a wicked thing. I rented out every copy i could from local video stores and crushed them with a 5 pound crucifix. That movie should remain locked in a cellar behind the 4th dimension with all the other disgusting beasts of hell. That is where this movie belongs. I suggest if you want some scandalous entertainment, go and rent All Dogs Go To Heaven, or Angels In The Outfield. Those movies are worth seeing. If you want to commit a sin and love terrible movies, you need to see Dr. Mordrid.


A terminally dull mystery-thriller, which may sound pretty sound theoretically but plays out very poorly. The ludicrous script is full of (MINOR SPOILER) people dying and then coming back to life when the plot requires them to, and the director doesn't seem able to work up any energy and suspense. The gooey sequence that kind of 'explains' the film's title is the only halfway memorable one in this tiresome film. (*1/2)


Being half-portuguese doesn't render me half-blind (nor half-prejudiced) when discussing portuguese films. Not that I get to do that very often anyway. But this film was such a rush of adrenaline! Yes, that's right - it was mostly accurate as far as history went/goes - but it pulled no punches on venturing beyond usual portuguese-film territory: things like using real locations in the middle of traffic-congested Lisbon and recruiting a real crowd to stand in for the real crowd of almost 30 years ago. And by God did they get it right! OK, to sum it up: very emotional if you've lived through it, but you'll spot minor improvements that could have been made as well as plot necessities that were. If you're just watching it randomly, you're in for a good historical romp, only of the very recent History kind and a bit more thought-proving than usual. Even by European standards, yes.


Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !!


It says a lot about the United Kingdom when television programmes like this not only get made but also run for three series. Unfunny, politically correct to the point of sickening and poorly acted and written. Meera Syal has not been funny or accomplished in anything that she has been in, go on tell me I am wrong, and Jasper Carrott, funny guy as he is, is well past his eighties prime. This is such a bad comedy that it could have been made by ITV but even stinkers like The Upper Hand and the one with James Bolam as a car park attendant look like Fawlty Towers compared to this rubbish. I would love to sit down with the writer/director of this show so that they can point out the humour in this programme. Admittedly the majority of the UK's population is made up of poorly educated chavs but this would not tickle their funny bones. That's if they could tear themselves away from Big Brother or from their mobile phones but that's another story. Complete and utter dirt!


'Handsome Guys With Bad Haircuts !!' 'Beautiful Girls Without Any Clues !!' 'Stupid Gangsters Who Cannot Shoot Straight !!' From Dragon Dynasty comes the Hong Kong gangster drama, 'Dragon Heat.' For reasons which will probably forever be completely obscured, the production and casting call for this 'criminals-on-steroids' movie somehow got both Maggie Q and Michael Biehn to sign on as villains. But they don't get all that much to do in this horrid slug-fest.

They are two of the best contemporary actors around, each with their own resume' and list of accomplishments, and Biehn in particular has had the courage to take some rather challenging and non-heroic roles.

Maggie Q was the super-bad 'Mai' in 'Live Free Or Die Hard,' so 'nuff said.

Biehn is, of course, famous for being the soldier-from-the-future who made 'The Terminator' of 1984 such a believable science-fiction/fantasy romp, by crashing up against Big Arnold, who is now the Governator of California !!

Michael Biehn is almost wholly wasted in this terrible train-wreck of a police drama. There is absolutely no reason for that, as the incredibly convoluted plot -- given mostly in Chinese, as it is a Hong Kong story -- could have been better elaborated for non-Chinese audiences with a foreign narrator.

In other words, if Biehn had been used as something like an Interpol observer or coordinator, or an agent under deep cover, who needs to get some 'splaining given to him every five or ten minutes, that would have been great. But no, he's brought in as a part of an odd group of special forces-type bad guys who seem to be freelancing their own corrupt deal, in the middle of somebody else's totally corrupt deal involving the local king of corrupt deals.

Yes, there, I said it all. Confused ? Me too. 'Welcome to the party, pal.'

In the truly superb Hong Kong crime drama, known by its English title as 'Breaking News,' there are also a number of fascinating characters at work, but there is only one story line in the plot.

Bad guys vs. good cops. In this wretched and excessively violent foray into the world of a Hong Kong Triad, or gang, it seems that the hot-shot police force is little more than a parade of ducks in a shooting gallery, the way the criminals mow them down.

So, not surprisingly, there's an almost otherwise incomprehensible scene ( several scenes, in fact ), where kids are trying to shoot wooden ducks in an arcade game, to win stuffed animal prizes. And so the hot shot good-guy police officers quite naturally intervene on their behalf, so that the arcade owner has to give up the Kewpie dolls.

There's also a half-hearted attempt at creating a 'love interest' between one of the 'visiting cops' and the sole female 'visiting cop'.

The visiting cops are supposed to be material witnesses against the Triad gangster leader, who gets hijacked on the way to his court appearance, but not by his own team but by the mercenaries ( Biehn, Maggie Q, and some others ). These killers all want something but we don't get to learn about what it is, until the very end of the film !! That was a stupid mistake inside of the overall story.

You cannot build suspense in a crime drama without something to obtain, or get, or get away from, being introduced very early in the story.

Add to that some 'cut-away scenes' done for purely artsy effects, all showing the bad-bad guys' and the regular bad guys' recent pasts, and any film buff can readily understand why this barking dog gets a 1 rating from this fan of all things cinematic with criminals and conspirators and Hong Kong.


Oh yes, I admit I have made myself guilty of the crime of seeing this piece of trash. I can't say I was forced by aliens who pointed a gun at my head, tied me to a chair and made it impossible for me to close my eyes and then turned this awful excuse for a movie on. No I did it with free will. I deliberately tortured myself. Let's go through the fact here folks. - The acting is an insult to humanity. - The plot (if it exists) is ridiculous. - The character development is horrendous - The characters that appear in the movie are so clichéd you would

recognize them in your average comic book. - The editing is sloppy and unimaginative. - The camera-work is low key. - The dialogue is simply the worst in cinematic history. - The directing: well let's say, I bet it wasn't Hitchcock.

Then to add to these facts, there was absolutely no talent involved wath so ever. The director must be smoking crack now to forgive himself for inflicting this poison to the world.

Bottom line: Passport to Paris is one of the worst movies ever made. PERMANENT!


It's just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.


Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become 'Alias Smith and Jones'. Mr. Wayne becomes 'John Jones'. Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be 'Rev. Smith', but Wayne calls him 'Dr. Smith'. At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in 'Our Gang', is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one.


sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie.


Before I saw this masterpiece I never would have guessed that a devastating and hideously contagious virus could be defeated by the use of Lutheran prayers... and 'erbs'. Ralf Moeller's performance is gargantuan; the realism incandescent. I was so inspired I'm flying straight to Zambibwia tomorrow to crack out the pesto and get my hands together for third world prosperity. God bless this film.

Seriously, I'm going to have to watch Troll 2 and Anus Magillicutty just to believe that it is possible to concoct more hamfistedly clichéd dialogue. It's so tortured that taking a cheesegrater to your knuckles might well be preferable to sitting through it. The only subtlety it manages to achieve is in its thinly disguised racism, as the poor islanders turn to ineffectual dumb-ass collective prayer which achieves nothing until the übermenschlich, linen-shrouded Teutonic hero Moeller, with his direct line to Yahweh, can provide a blood sample which the horn-blowing yankee scientists can get to work on and save the hapless natives. This movie sucks.


Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the 'more' category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.

The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.

The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.

The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.

The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some 'humor' is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western 'serious' films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.

The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.

The film is also genuinely pretty 'suspicious' in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.

The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this 'table brutality' scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how 'uncut' versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.

The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk 'Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)' Wong!

Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art.


Quite typical for swedish movies of this type. Strange that the acting was soooo bad, these actors usually give a good show. The casting was poorly done, it made you expect something (I won't tell you what). The lead character was awful... I don't know where they find her. Anyway, stay away from this and go see 'Den Tredje Vågen' instead, this is swedish action in is prime.


i rented this when it came out on video cassette in 1995. After rewatching it again,my idea about it hasn't changed much.

i was an adult then and i'm still an adult now!lol

The illogical elements mentioned by other reviewers didn't bother me. This isn't a documentary,it's a fantasy story where animals can talk!

While i didn't care for much of the songs,i liked the one at the end of the picture where it's sang by barry manilow and another person.

Some people seem to make an excuse for it's primitive animation by saying that CGI wasn't used often in animated features but let's not forget that THE LION KING was released about a year earlier and that packed possibly more excellence than any animated feature that came before it!!

But i think it's pretty fair to say that THE PEBBLE AND THE PINGOIN was made on the cheap while THE LION KING wasn't....

The high points for me in 1995 as well as today is the suspense generated by the few dangerous(mostly) underwater chase scenes.

i also liked the opening scene which takes place on a music notes page and a little bit of the love story. But most of the time,the story dragged on and was boring.

Worth a look if you like animation but if you're an adult and not a risk taker,go get another Walt Disney production instead of this!


This movie is just plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.

Do not watch this, it not worth your time.


it was very sensitive very deep. It's my favorite all the time you can't see movie more deeper than this incredible movie. susan sarandon made her role as matured mind actress, and she realized her role. She deserved the award. She convinced me with for being a nun. The music was very impressive and sensitive. Really i liked this deep masterpiece.


Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.

Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.

A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.

Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.

Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money.


the reason why i gave this movie a 4 was for a couple reasons, but this movie was not that bad. first off, the editing i found too be pretty poor at times, the script(or what they had of one) was not very good, and if not for Nunzio La Bianca, the acting would have been crap. but all that aside(ha ha i know its like the whole movie) its not that bad for an extremely low ind. , low budget film. If they would have gotten more money, a little better actors(but these ones were intimidating so it was good) and a little more detailed script this movie would be terrific. Somebody has to tell me this guy was influenced A lot by the warriors by Walter hill. i mean this movie is exactly like it. anyone who has seen both those films will agree with me.


I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.

For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.

I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.

Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.

Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.

The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack.


I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.

cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.

...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.

All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).

The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.

The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.

The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.