This movie is about a depressed and emotionally constricted man has a distant relative move in with him in his apartment in Istanbul. As time passes, their relationship becomes more and more strained until finally he begins yelling at his house guest--who is out of work and doesn't appear all that eager to find work. That's most of the movie in fact. The problem is that although emotionally constricted and depressed people are VERY withdrawn and non-communicative, they don't make for a very satisfying movie. That's because most of the time he (and his roomie) just stare into space and say nothing. I think all these flat moments could have been shortened to make a 30 minute movie--I certainly wouldn't have minded.


Joe Don Baker. He was great in 'Walking Tall' and had a good bit-part in 'Goldeneye', but here in 'Final Justice' all hope is gone...the dark side has won.

As with most of humanity, my main experience with this one was on MST3K, and what an experience it was! Mike and the robots dig their claws deep into Baker's ample flesh and skewer this flick completely. It's obvious they were just beginning with 'Mitchell' on their anti-Joe Don kick and here lies their continuation on a theme.

It makes for a funny experience, though: there are plenty of choice riffs. My favorites - 'John Rhys-Davies for sale', 'It's 'Meatloaf: Texas Ranger'', 'none of them are sponge-worthy', 'Why was she wearing her prom dress to bed', and my favorite - ''Son of a...'? What? What was he the son of: son of a PREACHER MAN?'

By itself, 'Final Justice' is, as Joe Don puts it in the movie, 'a big fat nada'. But here, it actually has some entertainment value. You get a chance, catch THIS version of 'Final Justice'.

Two stars for 'Final Justice'. Ten for the MST3K version ONLY.

Oh, and try not to visit Malta when Joe Don's in town.


Well let's be fair. Following up a cult classic like Road House is no easy task. Now subtract Swayze from the equation and you get a monumental task. So with Patrick not on board whose bonehead idea was it to proceed anyway and make this piece of garbage? I am going to blame the director who didn't even provide 5 minutes of decent footage throughout the entire film. I was actually shocked they got Will Patton (Armaggedon) to jump on board. Johnathon Schaech did an OK job with the lead but the writing was atrocious. Turning down his partner brunette bombshell (Crystal Mantecon) in the film's first 5 minutes made me want to eject it right there. But I stuck with the film hoping to catch a glimpse of that great cheesy humor that worked so well with the Double Duece. No such luck. The cover of the DVD is hilarious, they show these two stacked blondes who make one 10 second appearance in the film. Costar Ellen Hollman actually puts in a decent performance as well. But again the effort is futile in a piece of garbage and disgrace such as this. Has Jake Busey ever been cast in a decent film? Could they not pull at least a few actors in from the first film for some kind of nostalgia treatment? Even one of the old bouncers or two, or Jeff Healey for a performance would have been nice. Take this film out of your Queue immediately. -LostFlix


Buddy Holly was a pioneer and victim of the early days of rock 'n' roll. The young singer/songwriter from Lubbock, Texas left his mark on the template of modern music. Inspired by Elvis Presley, Holly would spend a lot of time fighting the system in order to get his rock-a-billy sound recorded. Before his untimely death, he was mixing lush strings with be-bop rhythms. Holly would take his place with Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Ricky Nelson as the voices of teenage angst.

This easy to watch bio is not without flaws. Some situations, events, places and even names were not correct for various reasons. What makes this movie so believable is that Gary Busey did his own singing in the part of Holly. A well produced soundtrack became a multi-million seller.

Busey was nominated for an Oscar. Other stars of note are Don Stroud, Conrad Janis, Charles Martin Smith and Maria Richwine.


I am very surprised by the positive comments because there were four of us that saw this at one screening and we all walked out. We personally felt that it was painfully slow to watch and couldn't sit through the whole movie. And we really tried to stick with it. In particular, those in the group who really wanted to like it because of their personal experiences with sexual orientation alienation in the school years depicted didn't like or identify with it at all. :(

That said, it is great to see that this film really resonated with a lot of people here on the boards and with reviewers. That's the beauty of the subjective art form of film. :)


It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in 'Mute Witness', we find a prime example of this.

*Scene spoiler*

In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act....

...then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.

*End Scene Spoiler*

I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.

The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.

Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.

The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fiancée, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.

There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense/thriller film techniques.

As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!)


Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.


I have never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.


Andy Goldsworthy is a taoist master of the first order, expressing the Way through his sublime ephemeral art. Indeed, time and change is what his work is fundamentally about. I bought his first book several years ago and my family has marveled at it many times. So it was a treat to get to know the artist personally through this film, he is just as patient and gentle as you would expect, and has some wonderful things to say about the natural world, the deepest of which are expressed in his occasional inability to say it in words at all. He is like most children who play in the great outdoors alone (if they do anymore), creating things from sticks and sand and mud and snow before they outgrow it. Mr. Goldsworthy was given the gift and the mission to extend that sort of play to create profound visions of nature, and to open our often weary eyes to it in brilliant new ways. And always with the utmost respect, gratitude and humor of a wandering, and wondering monk.


this movie is the best horror movie i have ever seen. the acting is terrible and the plot leaves a lot to be desired but the puppet gave me nightmares for weeks. seriously, if you have little kids don't let them see this. of course i am a little biased because of an irrational fear of puppets and midgets. also a body double cameo by the guy who does mini me verne troyer. and some gratuitous nudity, a must in any low budget horror movie. all other horror movies will forever be judged against this in my book.


It's a colorful slasher movie. That's about it.

It has the mystery element that SCREAM made so popular in slasher movies, but I never care for such things. Figuring out who's the bad guy is not that interesting considering the clues are all misleading anyway.

The death scenes were inventive and gorey, bringing back memories of 80's horror movies like Friday the 13th.

Another nice thing about this movie is that it's hard to pinpoint the surviving girl, unlike in SCREAM and IKWYDLS where it was obvious.

People who don't like slasher movies won't like this movie. As simple as that. I truly enjoyed it and I plan to watch it again while waiting for more of the same.

--MB


Rohinton Mistry's multi-layered novel seemed impossible to adapt for the screen but the resulting movie is filled with passion, emotion, humour and pathos. The story is somewhat slow-moving but there is always something on the screen to captivate the audience. The movie perfectly catches a particular time and place with pinpoint accuracy. All of the actors are Indian - few if any known to 'western' audiences - but they are a joy to behold, especially the little girl who acts very convincingly. Don't be put off by the title and plot summary - this is a movie to be seen on the big screen. We have much to learn from it.


I went to see Random Hearts with 3 friends, and at first, I thought maybe it was just me who wasn't enjoying the movie. After all, I didn't like As Good As it Gets and that movie won all sorts of awards. Well, it wasn't just me...none of my friends liked it either. It was unbelievable slow, much like getting teeth pulled. The only action that is in the movie is what is in previews. We didn't walk out of the theatre because we all assumed something more would happen. We weren't as smart as the 7 or 8 people who did walk out. I have never walked out on a movie in my life, but I definitely should have. This is all tough for me to write, considering I am relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. It takes a lot for me to think a movie is awesome, but not much for me to just like it. This movie didn't even come close in the like category. Not only was the movie about 2 hours too long, but it was like two separate trite stories in one, but they weren't smoothly sewn together. Plus, the 'soundtrack' if you could even call it that was so annoying. Like Seinfeld has the same riff that is played over and over again (difference being that i like Seinfeld)..this movie had this jazz riff that it kept playing, which sounded highly inappropriate at times, especially when people were dealing with the deaths of the plane crash. Hard to explain what I mean, but trust me it was awful. I cannot say enough to make people not waste their money. After I left the theatre, I honestly wanted to write to the movie company and demand my $7 back..sheeesh, I could have gone bowling or something for that money.


Piece of junk, would've given it a 0 if I could have. Animation is good, but not quite good enough. Storyline is absolutely THE most ridiculous I've ever come across, and that's saying a lot! This 'movie' tried so hard to be interesting, but failed miserably. It's almost as if the writer started one story, then got another idea, and attempted to mesh the two together. Don't waste your time on this; believe me, you'll be as ticked off with yourself as I was. The only actor of any note in this was James Woods, and his part was peripheral at best. I'm all for doing stuff that is edgy, that pushes the envelopes, but this simply didn't cut it.


I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.

Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.

I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.

Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)


Spoilers ahead.

2001: a Space Odyssey is without a doubt the most challenging and successful film by the late Stanley Kubrick. This is not a film that you watch in order to be entertained or amused. Instead it provides you with a banquet of food for thought, images that linger in the mind's eye long after the movie itself is over. It is a film that you could meditate on.

 The film intentionally offers us more questions then it can answer, it is made to puzzle and mystify, but leaves the viewer nevertheless with a sense of awe and reverence (that is allowing that he has engaged himself in the process of viewing it, enjoyment of this film requires some effort on the viewers part) the questions that it does pose are large and ominous, concerning the genesis and destiny of the human race, it's ultimate place in the cosmic design and the existence or lack of some creative intelligence behind the structure of the universe itself.

 The first of the films Four Quartets gives us a distinct view of the species past. We see our distant ancestors, half-ape half human, in a state of near starvation. The climate has destroyed most of the plant life and the vegetarian beasts are near starvation. An extra-terestial object, a perfectly smooth and angular black monolith, appears and the animals are simultaneously inspired by it's presence to tool-making and violence. They are transformed overnight into carnevores, and when two tribes encounter each other near a water source, the tribe that has developed tool making capacity, as well as beligerence, soundly destroys the neighboring tribe. The new chief of the winning tribe, empowered by the first vestiges of technology triumphantly throws the bone that he used as a weapon in the air. We see the bone transformed into a floating satellite, which contains nuclear weapons. We soon learn that the world is torn apart by nuclear paranoia. The characteristics inspired by the monument's appearance that once helped us to survive now threaten our very existence.

 Once again humanity is in crisis, once again the unearthly presence represented by the black monolith will step in to aid humanity in the next step in it's development. On an exploration of the Moon a monolith identical to the earlier one we have seen is discovered. The governments of the world, normally mortal enemies, have come together in secret to discuss the implications. A mission is arranged. the monument has been engaged in some kind of radio communication with Jupiter. A few men will travel to the destination of the transmission. Most of them will, for most of the time, be kept in a state of suspended animation. The pilot of the spacecraft will be HAL a super computer who has been programmed to imitate all of the traits of human beings.

 The film has many outstanding sequences. As usual for Kubrick the use of classical music is outstanding. Most memorable are 'Blue Danube' and 'Also Spake Zarathustra' (particularly appropriate given the film's theme of transcending ordinary consciousness.) The cinematography is particularly excellent as well, after a single viewing the film's final 30 minutes will haunt you for the rest of your life.

 The character of HAL is the most important from the view of the film's central thesis. In imitating all the characteristics of human beings he comes to have their negative traits as well. The paranoia he develops which almost leads to the mission' s ruin is an exact mirror of the paranoia that has allowed the political situation back on earth to reach a point of desperate crisis. The film suggests that these are the traits that we must leave behind if we are to proceed to the next phase in our evolution.

 The architecture of the film is also meaningful. The designs of many of the spacecraft are intended to suggest reproductive organs and the process of birth and rebirth, the central motif of the movie. The ending of 2001 is the most spectacular and triumphant ever filmed.

 This movie takes a view of life similar to that presented in the poetry of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake. It posits a pattern to history and human evolution that is cyclic, yet progressive, repeating the same events at large intervals, yet with the human race as developing according to the will of a being with a larger purpose in mind. Though we never learn what this purpose is, the film assures us that the human race is not meant for failure, it's destiny is grand beyond it's capacity to imagine. It continues to amaze me that in spite of this film many people continue to regard Kubrick as a misanthrope.

 This is a religious film, not in the conventional sense of adhering to any specific creed, but because of it's invocation of wonder at the vast panorama of existence and it's involvement with the deepest and most vital questions of purpose and truth.

 In the hands of any other director, this would all be perhaps a little too much. Hollywood's view of life is too puny, usually to encompass the grandeur and intensity of a vision such as this one. But Kubrick was a visionary, he directs with utter confidence, not only that he can handle material of this kind, but that he is the only one to do it. The process of making this film used all of his creative resources. The writing partnership with Arthur C Clarke is the most fruitful in cinematic history. Kubrick had to invent some of the special effects that were used in the movie's astounding climax. The resources to bring his vision to life did not exist at the time, so he brought them into existence.

 2001 is a absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities.


Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).

Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.

'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?

No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.


I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.

nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.


Compared to the acclaimed Hollywood remake, this film is less flashy but much stronger at providing an overall picture of the drug problem. The remake loses the most interesting of the three plot threads, that of a farmer whose meager livelihood depends on drugs as a paying cash crop and whose increased involvement with the drug trade in an effort to better himself destroys himself and his family. Additionally, the story of the daughter's addiction goes into the problems not only of withdrawal but the high likelihood of relapse. This original miniseries makes good use of the additional time to go into the issues more thoroughly and remains stronger meat on this controversial subject.


Just after having moved into his new cottage in the English country, Hercule Poirot gets an invitation to dinner from Sir Henry and Lady Angkatell, the owners of a large mansion nearby. But the next day, one of the guests is found shot near the pool, and his clumsy wife is holding a revolver a few steps away....

This Agatha Christie mystery is somewhat thin, though the killer's plan is still very clever. It's the exquisite filming and cinematography that elevate the story to a higher level. This episode mostly keeps the serious tone of 'Five Little Pigs' and 'Sad Cypress', but contains more dark humor than them. The cast includes possibly the two most famous actors to have worked in the series by this point, Edward Fox (as the butler) and Sarah Miles (as Lady Angkatell), though the standout performance is given by the dazzlingly beautiful Megan Dodds as the ahead-of-her-time Henrietta: her one-on-one confrontations with Suchet sparkle and are the highlights of the film. Oh, and since an English police inspector does get involved in the case, I think they could have brought Philip Jackson back for this one. (***)


I would hope so and how can I get involved?

This movie is a classic and ripe with laughs, adventure and an all star, 80's cast!

What happens when you get together a group of jocks and sororiety, a group of debating nerds, a band of misfits and couple of couselors?

A load of laughs that will have you begging for more!

David Naughton stars as Adam, the leader of the 'yellow team,' a kind and hip college counselor who helps students with everything from getting the classes they want to first dates.

His nemesis is Harold, the leader of the 'blue team,' played hilariously by Stephen Furst of 'Babylon 5' fame, the no good loafing son of a wealthy, former college jock with enough trophies to make any hall of famer jealous.

Pit these two against each other and throw in a 'red team,' a 'white team,' and a 'green team,' an unbelievable 'view' at an observatory, consequences of cheating at minature golf, a super tour at the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer factory, and a hateful old landlady among other adventures, and you have all the makings of a night to remember!

Look for appearances by Michael J. Fox, Eddie Deezen, and director Andy Tennant in one of the last movies he acted in before becoming a director and you have an all star, hilarious, cast.

The only down side to this movie was Debra Clinger's performance as Laura. She terribly overacted, but the rest of the movie is so good, she can simply be ignored.

I own this movie and can never watch it enough!


After seeing the 'Batman Dead End' short, I didn't know what to really expect from World's Finest. Of Course, Superman AND Batman. All my World's Finest comic books have them as the team-up.

After seeing this 3-and-a-half minute trailer, it made me wish someone would make a serialized fan film for World's Finest, if not an actual full-length film.

Sure, some of the Superman stuff was cheesy, but movie trailers in theaters are always teasers, giving you only certain aspects of the entire product. This looks like it needs a complete product.

Other than director Sandy Collera's relative playing an achingly poor Perry White, most of the actors were unknown. If an actual movie was made, actors would be cast to fit the bill for the film, though I believe Nina Kaczorowski would make a good Lois Lane, especially if given closer-to-the-character dialogue.

Good to see Clark Bartram wearing the Batman costume from Dead End, but it should be updated a bit more and not be like the 40s Batman with the 80s-90s leather cape and cowl. His demeanor is Batman-like, but I still wonder about the validity of white contact lenses instead of just allowing his eyes to show through the mask. I believe the goal was to get it as close to the comic character than the movie persona.

Michael O'Hearn cannot play Superman, period. He stands around with a goofy look on his face that simply says, 'slap me.' And line delivery seems to be a problem with him.

Overall, though, I would love to see a complete story and film based on this ingenious piece of work. There was a rumor about a World's Finest movie being made, and with the correct additions to the script, this could be it. Hope more like this are made.


I was plagued by nightmares involving Sesame Street and the Muppet Show during my childhood. I loved the programs, but when I slept, I'd dream about muppets not unlike the ones on TV...but not quite the ones on TV.

They would speak gibberish and laugh and sing while eating each other and killing each other. They'd take a bite of their cute felt flesh and it would tear apart followed by arterial bleeding. NICE! But that was the past...I LOVE THIS SHOW! I saw Peter Jackson's MEET THE FEEBLES years ago and wondered why there wasn;t similar work out there. Well here it is, as sick, twisted and somehow socially potent the old Hobbit's vision.

If you like this show, and you haven't seen MEET THE FEEBLES, get it on Amazon or some such film source. You're in for a treat.

By the way, Clarence would totally kick Triumph's dog ass.


If you speak French or can put up with sub-titles, you will really enjoy this movie. If on the other hand you just want to see God's most beautiful creatures, this is a must see. Not an ounce of silicon in sight. Zalman King eat your heart out. Sophie Marceau's body is the epitome of perfection and everything I had ever fantasized about. Her part is even in English. Even the fact that she was nude with John Malkovich did not detract for her beauty. Sophie is a ten if ever there was one. Chiara Caselli and Inés Sastre are 9.5s. Oh yeah, it is a pretty good story. Several little vignettes are woven together in a sort of Six Degrees of Separation style.


I'm not a movie snob. I've liked lots of movies that critics hate, and I've hated movies that critics love. However, I have to agree with critics here--'Galaxina' is just substandard. Clearly intended to be a comedy, it only has a few scattered laughs. 'Galaxina' has poor photography; it has poor special effects; it has some pretty poor acting; and the production values...well, the sets might as well have been made of cardboard.

'Galaxina' tells the story of a spaceship whose crew is looking for a magical object called 'The Blue Star'. After a long voyage (and some very unconvincing space battles), the crew arrives at its destination, a sort of wild west alien world. There's a painfully unfunny cantina scene (clearly designed to be a spoof of the famous 'Star Wars' scene), a chase involving space bikers, and a final getaway.

The cast tries, but can't breathe life into this turkey. Stephen Macht and Avery Schreiber have done better work in other movies. James David Hinton is pretty good as a member of the spaceship's crew. The late Dorothy Stratten stars as the robot of title, and while she looks great, her role doesn't give her much of a chance to act.

You might catch this film to see Dorothy Stratten. However, if you're looking for a good movie, you'll probably want to skip this one.


This film did a wonderful job of capturing NYC stereotypes at there best. If you want a simple, cute story however, you won't find it here. The related tales are woven together in a manner that does an excellent job of capturing the close-knit yet contrastingly anonymous lifestyle that is Manhattan. A perfect watch for those who enjoy and can laugh at New York life in its most natural state.


This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.

The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.

The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.

The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil.


This is beyond stupid.

Two high school graduates travel to Nantucket for the summer and find situations there that are absolutely revolting.

Demi Moore co-stars in this one. As the film was in 1986, was Ashton Kutcher just a babe in the woods at that time?

Moore's grandfather has died and his home is on the verge of being sold to ruthless people with a father and son who bring a new meaning to the term mean.

Bobcat Goldthwait, with that obnoxious voice is in the film, as well as two brothers, who make dumb and dumber look more and more intelligent.

The writing is absolutely ridiculous. Highlights of the stupidity are where one person says to the other: 'Did you ever notice that when people die, they go alphabetically in the papers?'

I rest my case.


There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.

This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.

The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.

And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought 'who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself', I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.

This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the 'haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100' effect. Or be warned.


Ben Stryker an ex-green beret stops off at a little town called Agua Dolee to visit an old friend Tick Rand. Soon after riding into town on his Suzuki and settling in. A motorcycle gang known as 'The Savages' who's led by tyrant Pigiron invade and finally take over the place. Stryker doesn't want to get involved, but that changes when he friends become the actual targets.

Is there anything good to say about this scuzzy item? Tough call, as the only fundamental reason to watch this low-budget car wreck is for the tremendous b-cast the crew managed to get hold off for this project. While I don't think it's a complete botch job, it's not terribly good either. Now what a cast! Lance Henriksen (being the main character, he strangely doesn't have top billing, but the final one), Karen Black, George Kennedy, Richard Lynch, Bill Forsythe, Mickey Jones and Leo Gordon. Now what went wrong with this scummy low-budget bungle. The shallowness of the material is too one-dimensional that it heavily borrows ideas from better movies (namely Mad Max) and comes up with a complete mess of ideas that just don't gel and could have been better thought out. The clichés that are used can be manipulated into a good viewing, despite being predictable, but 'Savage Dawn' seems to let it skimpily rush all by without letting the viewer soak it all up. The cast are mostly wasted in nothing roles. A bleached-blonde Henriksen is capably solid and even with his commending presence that provides an enigmatic glow to his character. He doesn't get up to hell of a lot and sometimes goes missing in action. Too much sideline action, but when he did kick some bikers' ass, the good times flowed. Karen Black's hissing performance is a very odd one and is all about the screaming and cursing. Although she does get into one memorable catfight with Claudia Udy's flirtatious vixen character Katie. A wheelchair bound George Kennedy roams around aimlessly until the final assault and Richard Lynch looks embarrassed as a wayward priest / town mayor in a very redundant role. An on edge Bill Forsythe simply chews it up as the head honcho of the notorious biker pack.

The junky story (written by William Milling and Max Bloom) has that cheesy comic book getup and very much is influenced by the western genre. Just look at the villains for that. How they came up with their names is mystery. Maybe they drew them out of a hat. It's pretty second rate material that more often moves onto one lacklustre scene after another. Unfunny comical elements are chucked in and as well a bit of sleaze. Tacky exploitation that doesn't get gritty enough and the deaths are quite laughable. A clumsy script is filled convoluted details and unbearable trite. Simon Nuchtern's spotty direction was by the numbers and tepidly laid out. One or two intense scenes can't makeup for its tortoise-like pacing and many cack-handed stunts. The cardboard sets had down 'n dirty look, but lack that organic sense. The gravel-like cinematography by Gerald Feil was better handled when the main focus wasn't on the town, but on the desolate backdrop (like the beginning and ending climax of the film) with some neat camera touches. Pino Donaggio's clunky music choices are drowned out by its own incompetence.

'Savage Dawn' is a forgettable quickie midnight movie that's a definite misfire for most part. There are better and more convincing exercises of the same ilk out there.


This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.

Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on

They should have dumped Chucks side kick


I found this little gem as an extra feature on my DVD of Vampyr-Der Traum Des Allen Grey, and didn't expect all that much from it. It looked like it might be an interesting little short though, so I turned it on.

I am so glad that I did. It was really incredible! Despite having been made more than 70 years ago, the animation was, in my view, better than some of that done today with all the computer effects and experience available now.

The story is quite simple-a newly put together toy dog hears its owner's laments about not being able to afford an orange and goes on a quest to find her one. In the process, it runs into a toy's underworld with all sort of nefarious creatures and toys overseen by none other than the devil himself, who all want the dog's orange for themselves as well.

This film precedes, but reminds me a lot of Mad Monster Party? (1969, Jules Bass)-a movie which I have always really enjoyed-and to a lesser extent, some of Tim Burton's animated works-The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, Henry Selick) and Corpse Bride (2005, Tim Burton). Fans of any of these movies will, I am sure, also love The Mascot.

Overall, an incredible piece of short animation which is well worth watching.


I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible.


Wesley Snipes is perfectly cast as Blade, a half human, half vampire known the daywalker. He has all their strengths and his only weakness is the thirst for blood. Since he teamed up with whistler (Kris Kristofferson) he has hunted down vampires who have lived amongst us unnoticed for centuries, but omnipotent overlord Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) is tired of living in harmony with the humans (Food as he calls them) and he plans to waken the blood god and take control of the world.

This movie is well cast, written and directed; ensuring the viewer has a thrilling ride from start to finish. Packed with great fight sequences and slick dialogue, Blade is certainly more action than horror, but it definitely delivers.

8/10


I have waited for ages to comment on this programme, and felt it was about time some justice was done to it. This is one of Christie's darker, more sinister and engaging works, not simply someone being killed for money, this is a dark and thoroughly engaging tale of mystery, intrigue, love and murder, made all the better by the amendments made by the adaptor. The level of acting is utterly superb, Joan Hickson is sublime in the part, as always! The rest of the cast, including the likes of Liz Fraser, Anna Cropper and Helen Cherry all perform beautifully, but it's my opinion that the show is stolen by Margaret Tyzack, the closing scene between her and Joan Hickson is simply magical, the acting is as good as it gets, chilling, moving and totally brilliant.

Please let me know if you agree with my words. I am seriously looking forward to the remake to see how well Geraldine McEwan's version is. Watch and enjoy.


I saw the MST3K version of 'Deathstalker III' and loved the movie so much -- even 'unmystied' -- that I decided to watch the entire series of 'Deathstalker' films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.

Nothing about 'Deathstalker I' was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either 'DS 3' was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open 'DS 2' as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.


I think this movie is well done and realistic. I you are used to watching Hollywood 'action' movies, and use that as a standard to rate this movie, you are bound to be disappointed. This movie is much closer to real life than 95% of what Hollywood can produce, and that is what lifts it above the average action movie. I have no experience with Swedish military whatsoever, and can therefore not point out any mistakes in the way they act. But as i have seen the 'making of' extra I'm convinced that there has been done a lot to avoid any mistakes. This is a movie i will recommend for others to watch. High quality realistic story and movie.


An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.


This movie was messed up. A sequel to 'John Carpenter's Vampires', this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first 'Vampires', it's a good movie. 'Vampires: Los Muetos' wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.

4/10


The best screen performance ever by George C. Scott. The screenplay by Chayefsky, the irony-freighted dialogue, is near perfect ('Just where do you train your nurses, Dachau?'). Rigg is wonderful as the rescuing angel who saves Scott from doom, as is the whole cast. It's a hilarious and serious movie. It is a movie of the period, the 60's, but it is not in any sense dated. What it is about, the chaos and irrationality of the system vs. the sanity of the individual, is timeless. And the 'We heal nothing. We cure nothing' monologue (delivered, shouted actually, as no one else but Scott could) with its references to cloning and other 'wonders' of modern science could literally have been written this morning.


An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!


One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.

As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense!

The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play!

And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the 'Shining' is funfair!

NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!


I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.


I watched FIDO on some movie channel and I have to say that I've become an instant fan. The film feels like a comic book that perfectly captures the look and feel of the surreal 1950s, you know the wholesome decade when they danced to Elvis while dropping nuclear bombs in the desert just for the heck of it. People were so naive back then that it's frightening and the idea that those clean cut folks would find it normal to have zombies as pets actually works here.

Kudos to this Canadian production, the colorful crisp cinematography and the excellent cast, including Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny and the kid.

It's a shame this film wasn't a bigger hit. It deserved more recognition. It's much better than the stuff from Tim Burton or the SHAUN OF THE DEAD team. Oh well. It's an instant classic nonetheless.


The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'

Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)


This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything.


Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.


Deep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.

From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.

Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself.

Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.

The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously.


The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.

This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old 'Santa kills' theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.


Even after all these years, this remain 'a perfect movie' for me. I still remember sitting for a long time in the theater after it was over, stunned by the experience, overcome by emotion. I own the DVD (of course!) is see at least once a year. It's incomparable and I cannot add much to has already been written about its excellence and beauty. So glad others love it as much as I do! A note: the author of the book on which it's based - Michael Ondatje - was enchanted with the film and is quoted as saying he wished he had thought of some of the lovely scenes written purely for the movie...the way Kip 'invites' Hana to his side with a trail of small candles, and the way he arranges for Hana to view the frescoes in the ruined medieval church.


A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


Given the subject matter of drug addiction Down to the Bone almost can't help but be a rather depressing film. But depressing doesn't necessarily have to mean bad. Unfortunately in this case it is in fact pretty bad. The film has some good things going for it, most notably the quality performance of Vera Farmiga in the central role of Irene, a working mom struggling with a cocaine addiction. But there isn't enough good here to outweigh the bad. The film's failings lie mainly with the story, which fails to captivate and never really seems to get going. Irene goes to rehab and comes home to a clueless husband who has no idea how to support her attempt to kick her habit. Irene grows close to another recovering addict, a male nurse from her rehab center. Complications ensue. But the story never really sparks to life. It doesn't seem as if the movie is really going anywhere. You can say it's a stark, realistic look at the day-to-day struggles of an addict. Maybe so but in this case it doesn't make for an interesting movie. The whole thing has a very 'blah' feel to it. The minimalist cinematography doesn't help matters, adding another layer of drab to the incredibly drab proceedings. And none of the other performances measure up to Farmiga's. Hugh Dillon is OK as Irene's male nurse friend but nobody else in the cast adds anything of value to the proceedings. All in all this movie is a bleak, depressing and rather dull ride.


When I was growing up, Voyage into Space was my most favorite movie. I remember the time when KTLA (Channel 5) ran the movie for the whole week and me and my sisters watched it every single day! I still remember every part of that movie. The ending was so sad when Giant Robot got blown up along with Guillotine and then watching Johnny Sokko with all the tears running down his face calling for Giant Robot. There should have been a sequel to the movie, in which Giant Robot somehow survived the explosion. :) I can't believe that there are so many other Voyage into Space fans still out there. I really want to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD, but my sister said that the ones out there now are bootlegged and probably bad quality copies of the movie. I don't know why they haven't released it yet, since it's been over 40 years now. I think Voyage into Space was made back in 1968. Only now, my second favorite Japanese monster movie of all time (The War of the Gargantuas) is finally coming to DVD and being released on Sept. 9th and I can't wait! :) Now if only they would do the same with Voyage into Space. Giant Robot, Johnny Sokko, and Voyage into Space will never be forgotten! In my eyes and probably many others too, it will always be a childhood classic to me! :)


I just got back from the GLBT Film Festival at the AMC Loews 34th in NY. A friend told me about this film. Audience response was very positive! Lots of good solid laughs as well as some quiet moments of realization. Top notch in every area. A movie that makes you think, and then makes you realize how lucky we'd all be if we could turn back time and live without shame or guilt. I imagine this will come close to, if not win, the audience favorite award! What was most surprising was the fact the the movie appears to start off as a satire and then slowly weaves into a genuine commentary on the negative and sometimes violent reactions of the very group it started to satirize. There isn't any mean spirited humor at the expense of one group, just a slow realization that we would all be better off if we just went back to the gentle innocence that we all started off with.


This movie is not that good at all.Its pretty stupid, pretty annoying, and very poorly done.I really only saw this film was because one of my friends said they hated this film.Although I didn't hate it as much as them, I still found it to be a pretty bad film.The only thing that is remotely good about this was that it was a little entertaining at times, and also I feel that if it had been done a little better it would have been equally okay.What I mean by a little better is that if it had been totally recast, not have had it looked like it had been shot for a film festival, and if the script had been improved it would have been a okay slasher film.Instead it isn't but instead what it is now, a crappy film.The acting is atrocious I felt as if I was watching a couple of teens act for like a Halloween show or Thrill ride or something.The kills are pretty cheap(as is the film itself), and basically everything else is low-class.Overall this film really is bad and you wouldn't be missing out on anything if you decided to skip this film.

3.8 out of 10 stars


It surprises me how much I love this movie despite the fact that I don't really like dogs. Fox, Field, and Ameche do a wonderful job with the voices of Chance, Sassy and Shadow, and the acting by the animals themselves is just amazing.

I have seen this movie 72 times already (I know that sounds scary, but it's true!), and every time the ending scenes still get me. I highly recommend it to people of all ages and especially to animal lovers. It is indeed my all-time favorite movie!


Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.

A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.

I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.

Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.

Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.

Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.

I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.

Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.

4/10


This sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.

The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.

The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.


This movie is just so good! Despite Carmen Electra, this has to be one of the better films I have seen in awhile. Jamie Kennedy is just amazing, and Loren Dean plays an insane spoiled movie star very well. The plot is great as well. It's all very real which is scary. It says here that it's a drama, but this is one of the damn funniest dramas I have ever seen. Go check it out.


How did this ever come into existence? I generally love sci F/Bigfoot whatever films etc. . . but I still expect them to be written without quite so much cheese as this. The effects were sad, the lines were sadder. Avoid at all costs. I only ended up renting it because it was in the wrong case (I was looking for the Sasquatch film with Lance Henrikson in it -- still haven't seen that one). The idea of the film is actually a good one. There was a lot of potential to make a great little movie here. I just don't understand how something like this ends up like this. Go speak to the film/arts/English interested students in any high school and you'll find people who can write a better script.


Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.

This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.

Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.

I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.


How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and 'B movie' is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.


This one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs.


This film is utterly amazing. From the performances of Huppert, Girardot, and Magimel, to Haneke's screenplay and direction there is not a single misstep. The film may put some people off with it's hard sexual subject matter and with it's slower pace, but it really is a masterful piece of cinema... so do not let it's challenging ways keep you away!

Powerful, and deserving every award it won in Cannes!


I love the book, 'Jane Eyre' and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.


Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like 'should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?' 'Do the latter, please.' Or: 'our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?' 'Yes, it is, my dear.' Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.


brilliant screenplay..

the screenplay is very tight ..that u will be gelled in seat..

this movie is an example for movie can survive only with screenplay and no-story needed..

story is very simple that u can write in one line. but screenplay was amazing..

brilliant performance by Vijay and Prakashraj..

though plot is similar to okkadu.. director adapted only the plot. Tamil version is much fast paced than Telugu.

Movie travels straight without any chance of deviation, though u can understand each and every characters back-drop.

keep going


I decided to watch this on FearNet on demand for free because I figured well, nothing else looks enjoyable. And it turned out to be quite a good little horror surprise! The film serves as an anthology of four urban legends told from the point of view of four teenagers whose car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. After they decide to build a campfire in the woods, they begin to tell their spooky stories and the movie transitions to the events in the stories.

The Honeymoon- a newlywed couple traveling cross country in an RV to Las Vegas is terrorized when they park in a wooded area by evil beings that hunt by the full moon. (I won't spoil that for you!) The Hook- Amy Smart and James Marsden, (probably the most famous people in the movie besides beautiful Christine Taylor) play the young couple who come face to face with the maniac that has a hook for a hand in this most recognizable short.

People can Lick Too- this is probably the scariest and most dark of the stories. A young girl chats with another girl on the internet, but it turns out that it's actually a man who is obsessed with her and he proceeds to break into the house when she's alone. This was really chilling.

The Locket- This is also a great story with Glen Quinn and Jacinda Barrett, who play a motorcyclist and a beautiful mute girl who are terrorized by ghosts from a previous century in a mysterious farm house. This was good but it was the weakest of the entries.

The group around the campfire slowly develop their own terrifying experience in their segments between stories, and the end of this movie is surprising and really awesome! Overall this is not bone-chillingly scary but it's certainly a great little guilty pleasure that horror fans alike would definitely find worthwhile!


I am and have been a serious collector of Christmas related movies, TV shows, holidays specials, etc., for over twenty-five years. Please heed my warning and do not be mislead by sterling reviews & media hype about this movie. This is not a Muppett movie as we have come to know them, and is certainly NOT for children. The fact that this was produced for a major TV network is/was no surprise considering their level of operation at this time. What is hard for me to believe, is that The Jim Henson organization stooped so low to become involved in this travesty of Christmas.I wish there had been reviews for me to read that would warned me before I wasted my hard earned money on this piece of trash.


This is definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.


This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clichés leading up to the inevitable conclusion ('will the show STILL go on?'). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.

Nothing new but well done nevertheless.


I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ?


Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine  it's sort of a parody of the one Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie.


Now, I am going to do this without putting spoilers if I can. My cousin and I were renting movies the other weekend, and we stumbled across this, with the big freaking' scarecrow on the cover. It looked cool, so we rented it alongside Kungfu Hustle.

Wow... Just... Wow.

To start off, the movie was horrible. Now, the box art, opening scenes, and music was decent-to-well done, but the movie itself is horrendous. The acting is sub-par (Sean, the lead, shows hardly any emotion and/or effort in his character), the scarecrows look nothing like the one on the cover (False advertising, perhaps?), and the camera shots and angles were that of a bad wrestling event.

And trust me, I'm a wrestling fan. I KNOW bad camera angles. And honestly, this is right up there with Gigli and Pootie Tang. It's done so bad that it AMUSES me. It makes me laugh. So, somehow, this movie takes its place as a good comedy to me.

But, to be fair, it does serve as a what to do and what not to do in movies, especially of the slasher genre. I recommend that people DO watch this, just to get a good grasp of what to avoid.


I've been hearing a lot of this new bird flu that has killed dozens of people in South East Asia over the last three years . Apparently it's on the thresh hold of mutating into something very contagious and millions upon millions of people are going to be wiped out in a global pandemic . Just thought I'd mention this in case you haven't got round to writing your will yet .

I'd also thought I'd mention it since I was watching something called CARRIERS tonight which wasn't about naval warfare but opens with a scene that's a cross between OUTBREAK and an episode of THE X FILES I saw many years ago . I thought I'd be watching something with added resonance after hearing the stories about the danger posed by bird flu but after the not unimpressive opening CARRIERS descends into a cheap and cheerful TVM and like every other TVM you'll see the lead characters are female , one of which is a ballsy authority figure while the other lead female is a mother of young children . It goes without saying there's a sick child subplot too

What is irritating about the TVM format is that it overwhelms the potential of what could have been quite a good film if it was made for cinema . There's a fairly gory scene of someone coughing blood all over a nurses face and a very impressive jay walker getting run down stunt but these bits are quickly forgotten as the mood descends into family sentiment since this - And just about every other TVM ever made - was made for an essentially female audience


The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of 'The War At Home,' I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with.

One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next.

This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the 'Young Guns' movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting.

The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags.

What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing.


Before I explain the 'Alias' comment let me say that 'The Desert Trail' is bad even by the standards of westerns staring The Three Stooges. In fact it features Carmen Laroux as semi- bad girl Juanita, when you hear her Mexican accent you will immediately recognize her as Senorita Rita from the classic Stooge short 'Saved by the Belle'.

In 'The Desert Trail' John Wayne gets to play the Moe Howard character and Eddy Chandler gets to play Curly Howard. Like their Stooge counterparts a running gag throughout the 53- minute movie is Moe hitting Curly. Wayne's character, a skirt chasing bully, is not very endearing, but is supposed to be the good guy.

Playing a traveling rodeo cowboy Wayne holds up the rodeo box office at gunpoint and takes the prize money he would have won if the attendance proceeds had been good-the other riders have to settle for 25 cents on the dollar (actually even less after Wayne robs the box office). No explanation is given for Wayne's ripping off the riders and still being considered the hero who gets the girl.

Things get complicated at this point because the villain (Al Ferguson) and his sidekick Larry Fine (played by Paul Fix-who would go on to play Sheriff Micah on television's 'The Rifleman') see Wayne rob the box office and then steal the remainder of the money and kill the rodeo manager. Moe and Curly get blamed.

So Moe and Curly move to another town to get away from the law and they change their names to Smith and Jones. Who do they meet first but their old friend Larry, whose sister becomes the 2nd half love interest (Senorita Rita is left behind it the old town and makes no further appearances in the movie).

Larry's sister is nicely played by a radiantly beautiful Mary Kornman (now grown up but in her younger days she was one of the original cast members of Hal Roach's 'Our Gang' shorts). Kornman is the main reason to watch the mega-lame western and her scenes with Moe and Curly are much better than any others in the production, as if they used an entirely different crew to film them.

Even for 1935 the action sequences in this thing are extremely weak and the technical film- making is staggeringly bad. The two main chase scenes end with stock footage wide shots of a rider falling from a horse. Both times the editor cuts to a shot of one of the characters rolling on the ground, but there is no horse in the frame, the film stock is completely different, and the character has on different clothes than the stunt rider. There is liberal use of stock footage in other places, none of it even remotely convincing.

One thing to watch for is a scene midway into the movie where Moe and Curly get on their horses and ride away (to screen right) from a cabin as the posse is galloping toward the cabin from the left. The cameraman follows the two stooges with a slow pan right and then does a whip pan to the left to reveal the approaching posse. Outside of home movies I have never seen anything like this, not because it is looks stupid (which it does) but because a competent director would never stage a scene in this manner. They would film the two riders leaving and then reposition the camera and film the posse approaching as a separate action. Or if they were feeling creative they would stage the sequence so the camera shows the riders in the foreground and the posse approaching in the background.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I watched this movie which I really thought had a promising beginning but then it just led me to feel disappointed in the end. The problem I think with this film was that the director was trying a bit to hard to make this film weird and original. There were too many flashbacks and too many bad 'effects' which got me annoyed through the film. I love Debbie Harry and Isaac Hayes but they disappointed me in this film, they could of done much better. This film seemed promising in the beginning, dragging in the middle and then disappointing in the end. The film could never beat Stanley Kubrick's geniousness when it comes to controversial matters, weirdness and originality in movies.


Oh dear, just what we need another Essex -Cockney garbage effort chronicling the rise of the UK footy hooligan/ rave gangster who did of course follow West 'am (East Londan/Essex style). Didn't anybody tell you that they won the world cap!? And then of course the inevitable decay into UK rave culture underworld. Blah blah blah. Why how and who would want to fund a film like this i do not know but lets pray that it was from Private financiers (lets see ex drug dealers, merchant bankers -we all know what to call them, and the rest of the mockneys) rather than publicly funded means. Hopefully with the recession we will not see the like of this again. If we do we will be calling the death knell for British films and of course we will all be able to blame Britains number one Mockney Country gent wannabee gangster Guy Ritchie.


A Movie about a bunch of some kind of filmmakers, who want to make a documentary on a new kind of surfing in shark-infested waters. As an absolute fan of movies including some kind of vicious animals or monsters, I thought this might be my kind of movie... it wasn't!!! This should be more of a guideline of how not to do it! It has a lot of accidental humor in it and the evil beast is an incredible joke, in the final scene it goes after the main characters *rolling*, the feet are obviously waving in the air! It looks ridiculous! Good for a laugh though. If it were only for the lack of talent between the actors, the embarrassingly stupid dialogs and the hilariously stupid crocodile, it would be at least worth a laugh, but it gets worse: I'd guess, the people in charge of this movie noticed how weak it was, so they though up the old idea of 'sex sells'... Totally, i mean TOTALLY without any reasons one of the main actresses shows her breasts to the beast. And somewhere towards the beginning there's some kind of meaningless 'makeout'. This is the last ingredient making the movie absolute trash to me. It's incredible how people actually spend time producing such rubbish! If you are seeking for a real waste of time: watch this movie!!!


Not high art, not even exceptionally innovative, but a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Funny, fresh, intelligent - there are still people out there who don't need millions of dollars to hide that they're out of ideas.

When you compare this to your average Hollywood action flick, you're comparing a homemade meal with a big mac.


I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.

There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been 'The Vanishing Bride' or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.

I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.


A vg Brit rom-com, one to watch if you can get your hands on a copy. Quirky and often surprising, this is not the best of Brady's films (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is by far the funniest), though it does have a unique charm. Well written the story veers off into a few dead ends but mostly surfaces with a new plot high. You know from the start how it's going to end, but when it comes it is honest and very open ended, a realistic and credible ending, the end seemed like a beginning, enjoyable and left me wanting more.


Oz is a great series, one of televisions underrated shows. It has a certain relationship to soap opera in that something evil is always happening, and it is the unfolding of each instance of evil that fascinates. From my discussions with people who are actually in prison, it rings true. Every interaction has some machination working in the background. Behind every action, there lies a scheme, a plot to do someone else in. I like this series so much that it is one of the few TV shows I have bought completely, on DVD.

And, yes, I agree with the writer before me who commented that there are elements of satire in it. The character in the wheelchair who offers his jaundiced view of life does so with a certain bit of ironic humor.


Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up.


The early to mid 90s were a high point, in my opinion, for the historical drama. Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Rob Roy - all portrayed a distinctive passion and intensity in their respective time periods.

Rob Roy was a unique and intriguing taste of a time and place rarely represented by film. It really has everything - interesting story, great acting, remarkable dialog, and breathtaking scenery. I was particularly impressed by the apparently genuine dialog. I can imagine this is how early 18th century people spoke and behaved.

Something else that surprised me was the vulgarity expressed by the characters. I found it to be more repulsive and shocking, albeit often more subtle, than most found in films set in modern times. The movie had a very racy and sexually charged edge to it that was unique and most likely very realistic in the context of the era.

The pace was very tight, with hardly a dull moment. There was much intrigue and political subplots that complicated things a bit, but yet did not detract from the main storyline.

The action was also very well done and gripping. Something that I will forever find remarkable is that during the highlight action piece in the film, there is no soundtrack whatsoever. It makes for a very tense, exciting sequence, since we have no musical cue as to the direction and resolution of the scene.

Rob Roy will always remain high on my list of favorite films. I would recommend it to all.


Maybe 'Presque Rien' is not the best movie ever made... But it is better than many of you have said. I still haven't seen a homo-themed movie better than this one.

You Americans are accustomed to watch very narrative movies, with a clear beginning, development and outcome. But European movies are less narrative, but makes you think much and feel.

Many of you didn't understand the sense of the movie.. The purpose of this one is not show us a simple 'summer loving movie', with commercial characters who 'fall in love and live happy forever'. Summer Holidays and beach are only a background, and this movie is directed to every young boy who may feel identified with those boys.

Maybe some of you didn't understand well this movie, because of its 3 parts, showed as flashbacks. These 3 moments are: - Summertime in Pornichet, when they meet and love. - After a year and half living together in Nantes, Mathieu doesn't go to a psychiatric himself. He tries to suicide taking something, and Cedric brings him to hospital. Later, he appears talking with a psychiatrist to find the reason about he done that. - The last part, is when Mathieu come back to Pornichet, in winter, alone.. to think about how his life have changed, how his life become to be, and trying to find himself.

It's possible that some people couldn't understand all this well, because all the scenes are mixed among them. But anyway, as I said before... this is not a funny movie. If what someone want to see is meat, for that, we have Belami movies.

Presque Rien, what want to show us, is how cruel can be the life, for a young boy who is not sure about his feelings and not sure about what to do in life. Mathieu only wants to go away from home, and try to live the kind of life that he thought could bring him the happiness.. But what seemed perfect at the beginning.. later is not as good as he thought, and he become troubled, and feel that he has lost the way of his life. He is lost and doesn't know what he really wants to do, or what makes him happy. He finally become depressed and tries to commit suicide.

So, funny? Is not a funny movie. Very hot scenes? only a few.. but this is not a movie for entertainment. Is all about feelings... friendship, love, happiness, unhappiness, pain, depression, loneliness... I, as many others, feel identified with life and problems of Mathieu, and that is what director wanted to do.. a movie who show us the cruel reality of a boy's life.

For me, the best homo-themed movie ever.