I settled back to watch 'Read My Lips,' a plate of Freedom Fries before me. The food was quickly forgotten as I became engrossed by director and co-writer Jacques Audiard's original and superb thriller.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a secretary at a firm that develops major building projects. She actually has some significant responsibilities that don't often fall to secretaries and she's capable and ambitious. And thwarted by a male hierarchy that will exploit but not reward her.

Work piling up faster than she can handle it, Carla is told to hire a secretary. Enter ex-con and general layabout Paul (Vincent Cassel). He lies about his skills and in fact has none that any legitimate enterprise might require. After an initial serious misunderstanding by Paul as to Carla's interest in him, the two become allies. A quirky friendship starts. In a stunt that would have made a real Carla a major contender on 'The Apprentice,' she trumps her egotistic male adversary at work with Paul's connivance. Exit the rival.

Carla is virtually deaf without her hearing aid. With it she hears almost normally. She turns the hearing aid off to isolate herself from unpleasant sounds and annoying people. She's also very lonely. A heroic makeup effort was made to have her appear plain but she's truly beautiful. She hasn't a boyfriend. She babysits so a friend can have a liaison (it IS a French movie) Worse and humiliatingly, she accedes to a girlfriend's plea that she hang out somewhere while that married friend has it off with her paramour in Carla's bed. Not nice.

As Carla and Paul get to know each other better, the barely repressed larcenous side of the not so former felon emerges. There's a side story, by the way, of Paul's relationship with his parole officer which neatly complements the main plot and has its own big surprise ending.

'Read My Lips?' Ingenious Paul recognizes that Carla's ability to read lips, even from a considerable distance, is more than the amusing parlor trick it first seems to be.

From there a caper develops. Enough said.

Paul and Carla are a true criminal oddball couple. She wants love but will also accept money. He wants her, sort of, but business must come before possible erotic satiation. Together Cassel and Devos are strong actors carrying an unusual crime tale to its end very convincingly.

Rent it or buy it but if you enjoy a good crime story you'll go for 'Read My Lips.' And you may well want to watch it several times: I do.

9/10


I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as 'the best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin' trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived the De-sharted.


If anyone at National Lampoon is reading this PLEASE STOP THE CRAP YOUR PULLING OUT OF YOUR BUM, really now! Why the hell are you doing movies like these? They're not funny and watching it for the sexual content is a complete waste of time, really. It is such a horrible movie you may want to shoot yourself while your watching it. I am serious here, guys, it makes Harol and Kumar go to blah blah blah look like an actual good movie (and we all know that H&K is one of the worst movies ever made) It really sucks, it REALLY does. How bad it is? Well, even losers that actually like National Lampoon shall hate this movie...they'll want to murder the director, I swear to God. I hate you, National Lampoon, die already. Die.


I have been a fan of the Carpenters for a long time, read the biography, watched the specials, and saw the Karen Carpenter Story. This movie really didn't show the real Karen Carpenter. In the movie she seems to be a shy and a pretty much of loner (except for one girl friend). The real Karen Carpenter was much different. She was outgoing and friendly. She had lots of friends, especially Olive Newton-John. The movie doesn't even show Karen's attempts for a solo album and her meeting Phil Ramone and his wife Itchy 'Karen'. Itchy knew the real Karen Carpenter in New York. When Karen was in New York, she did see a psychologist, but it was voluntary and once a day and then she would leave to go to her hotel room. Also, Karen was taking pills to increase her thyroid, so she could loss weight, but stop taking them because the psychologist recommended her not too. Also, the Karen's husband in the movie is named Bob Knight, but in real life was named Tom Burris. Also, Karen wasn't divorced from Tom, but only separated. Karen was to sign the divorce papers on the day she died. Also, Agnes found Karen naked in the closet unciousness, unlike in the movie where she was dressed in white. The music was very good. That was the only thing I would recommend on seeing it.


'I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'

I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.

An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.

It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.

Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.


it would be a shame if one has yet to watch speed racer, be it dubbed or subbed (i prefer the dubbed version (which is rare) because it was funny...in a good way). what's great about speed racer is that you're never too old to watch it. go red and yellow!! i first saw this when i was around seven and enjoyed hearing the catchy opening. it disappeared for some time then i saw it again a couple of months ago (i'm 19). imagine the feeling of nostalgia surging in, singing 'here he comes, here comes speed racer! he's a demon on wheels~~~' over and over again. anyway, the concept of the mach 5 spawned so many 'ultra-multi-function-special-cars' but none were able to surpass its genius in construction. the other cars just seemed too much. and it wasn't just the races or battling different bosses that made it interesting for me. it was racer-x's mystery persona and how the world of speed racer pretty much 'happened' to revolve around it. they did some tweaking to some story lines from the manga, but it all turned out pretty well. though i can't remember if the show actually revealed how racer-x looked like, in the manga, they did.


Why is it that Instant Noodles aren't instant, this was the perplexing problem I placed in the lap of the one legged angry Sherpa; he angrily retorted that noodles weren't his bag, equally I replied 'What bag?' He looked further perplexed.

Some of you will be wondering, why has the Sherpa only one lower appendage.

The Sherpa, who we shall call Sherpa 5, for data protection reasons, injured his toe. 'How!?!' I hear you ask, I will proceed, as we have learnt from the review of Donkey Punch (2002) Irene via sly nudges and dirty winks etc tried in vain to teach the slight peculiarities of checkers to all the angry Sherpas. Sherpa 5 who is known only for his violent tirades against democratic principals during the post revolutionary years of the now United States of America and it's consequential affect on the mind sets of it's population in the post modern empire that now exists, through the invasions of countries smaller than it, got carried away in a river of violence due to his lack of comprehension of checkers. According to an eye witness , he sprung around like a feckless banjo string at Mardi gras wielding a stick with nail through it, after the struggle that ensued 5 llamas were each found to be missing their left testicles, 3 Sherpas were discovered spooning beneath a gooseberry bush and Sherpa 5 had the nail stuck in his big toe.

A Sherpas lifestyle is as modest as a nuns, with only rudimentary health care facilities at 15000 ft above sea level. Consequentially when the first aid hut was opened only an IOU for a tin of spam, and some crotchless knickers were found. Sherpa 5 hopped around like a dark on a noose in agony, until Irene burst forth like a cock from a hen house and suggested soaked his ailment in llama spit. Sherpa 5 agreed to the procedure , to sedate him, a bottle of 100 yr old Glenfiditch was produced, some say it was left by an angry Scotsman, who is thought to be an ancestor of the angry Sherpas. One under the influence, the toe was bathed until ridged, dressed with Irenes slightly soiled diaphragm and some blue tack. Some of you may feel that this procedure wouldn't do the Sherpa any good and you would be fully vindicated for holding that view. Only four days later gangrene set it and a week later the leg was removed through the use of even tighter elastic bands


While on a vacation at the beach, red-haired brothers Michael McGreevey and Billy Mumy (as Arthur and Petey Loomis) find a seal. The lads christen their critter 'Sammy', and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion. When it's time to go home, the boys begin to suffer separation anxiety. Young Mr. McGreevey decides they can't take 'Sammy' back to 'Disneyland' er, 'Gatesville' - but, young Mr. Mumy packs him anyway. At home, they try to hide 'the Way-out Seal' from adults, and, of course hijacks ensue!

**** Sammy - The Way-out Seal, pt 1 (10/28/62) Norman Tokar ~ Michael McGreevey, Bill Mumy, Robert Culp


This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.

The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!

Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.

The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as 'monkey meat', while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.

In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).

FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective.


This contains some spoiler information, but the movie is not worth watching anyway...

Why Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson agreed to be a part of this debacle by writer-director Damian Harris is beyond me. The story is full of unrealistic police investigating techniques, which includes going to a party with a suspect and inviting that suspect over to your house and getting intimate with them. The tale also features a male psychiatrist who seems to have nothing but female clients - and he sleeps with them all.

Even more over-the-top is the notion that the female victims to a horrendous S/M crime belong to a large, yet secret, group of S/M lesbian executives.

Full of bad editing and continuity errors, the film is sterile in all of its ritzy locations - including Barkin's detective salary apartment. And the lame dialogue is fit to put one to sleep.

Damian is a bad writer and a bad director. He tried and failed miserably to create a noiresque atmosphere at times. Furthermore, he couldn't get Ellen Barkin to give 110%. I firmly believe she realized the film was pathetic and gave up trying.

Standouts were Peta Wilson, who wasted time studying with a Dominatrix for the part. The highly under-rated character actor, Marshall Bell gave his absolute best as always.

And since Damian couldn't deliver on any level, it was hard to feel emotion for any of the characters.

Most importantly, he doesn't know much about the real world of BDSM and chose to create the typical 'Hollywood Reality' of gorgeous men and women who are perverted and dangerous.

Save your time, money and braincells and pass this one by.


This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for 'Gummo'. Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen.


If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.

For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.

To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.

I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.

There wasn't.

Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.


This Was One Scary Movie.

Brad Pitt Deserved an Oscar for this.

A traveling novelist (played by David Duchovny of the X-Files fame) and his girlfriend pick up two hitch-hikers(Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt) on their way to California.

On their way they stop at infamous serial killer murder scenes to photography the scenes for an upcoming book Duchovny's character is working on, little do they know that the most disturbed serial killer in the history of the country is sitting right next to them in the same car.


I hate to admit it, but I didn't find it to be one of Hitchcock's best but nonetheless a riveting, climatic thriller. In a remake of Hitchock's 1934 movie of the same title, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart)  the man who knows too much - and his wife Jo McKenna (Doris Day) are holidaying in Morocco with their son Hank (Christopher Oslen) when there is a case of mistaken identity and caught up in the web of an assassination plot. The conspirators go to extreme lengths to prevent them from interfering with their plot: kidnapping their beloved Hank.

I found it surprising that Doris Day, who I usually associate with Rock Hudson comedies, was cast in a Hitchcock film. As I was watching it, I soon realized that this was more of a family film compared to Hitchcock's other works (example: Psycho) and she had singing ability needed to pull off 'Que Sera Sera', which she did beautifully. She was well cast as herself and James Stewart had chemistry, which helped make the couple believable.

In comparison to the great director's other works I believe this isn't as good, but it is still a exceedingly entertaining family thriller/mystery. There is also the added bonus of Que Sera Sera, which turned out to be a smash hit for Doris Day. Well directed, well acted. A fine film.


This is a little film with a big heart. Excellent acting throughout and directed with love. If you missed it in theatres (and who didn't?), catch it with someone you love. Frankly, I cried! And I'm a guy, for cryin' out loud!


Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.

Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.

So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.

Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.


This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.


Hilariously inept - like 'She Wore A Yellow Ribbon' remade by five-year-olds.

Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, 'Slaughter Trail' is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.

If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.

Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's 'The Jungle Book', supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how 'horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade'...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!)

The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.

The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, 'dead', down a rocky slope.

The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- 'climax' is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, 'It could've been a LOT worse.' Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: 'I'd know that laugh anywhere!'

And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.

It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of 'Slaughter Trail', he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note.


Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment.


I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the 'MIGs' without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.


I enjoyed this movie and I had very low expectation due to all the negative reviews I read before going. I went because I was curious as to what all this fuss was about because some of the postings were so angry with this movie and with the Koreans. Oh and it's from Korea which has put out some of my favorite movies. I liked Host but not my absolute favorite. Some of my favorite sci-fi /fantasy movies so you can have a sense of my taste: Mirrormask, Stardust, Serenity, Gattaca, Willow, Matrix, Resident Evil series, LOTR, Stargate, Dark City.

It wasn't confusing like everyone said and the monsters looked good and the battles great. There are some holes in the story but didn't really matter. I sort of tune out stuff like that and stopped asking why long time ago when I see summer blockbusters. The Korean legend was interesting, the reincarnation stuff was different, and I thought the main characters suspiciously dressed like Korean actors in other shows. Ethan's(Behr)hair looked so Asian.

Yes, it could be better and I hope in the future that Korea, with its unusual quirky sense of life, intense emotions, and unexpected humor, can bring some diversity to the blockbuster genre. Maybe a combination of Host and Dragon Wars in the future?


I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the 'politique des auteurs' also has its dark side). But with 'Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon', it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's 'L'astrée', with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).

In his version of 'Perceval', Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).

The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film 'L'Astrée' in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.


I have seen a lot of Saura films and always found amazing the way he assembles music, dance, drama and great cinema in his movies. Ibéria shows an even better Saura, dealing with multimedia concepts and a more contemporary concept of dance and music. Another thing that called my attention is the fact that, in this movie, dancers and musicians, dance and music, are equally important: the camera shows various aspects of music interpretation, examining not only technical issues but also the emotional experience of playing. The interest of Saura on the bridge between classical and contemporary music and dance is one more ingredient in turning this movie maybe the most aesthetically exciting among his other works. That's why I recommend it strongly to those who love good cinema, good music, good dance, great art.


Peter Coyote was the only name that I recognised from the cast list, so I wasn't too keen on watching this film. The only comment on IMDb was positive, so I watched it on late night T.V. I would recommend this movie as a good late night viewing. It's better than a lot of this genre. The plot is excellent, the acting isn't brilliant, but it's not bad. I don't usually like flashbacks but in this film they work. As I've stated, I didn't recognise any of the cast by name, but I recognised Michele Lee, who gave a decent, hard working performance, as the woman wanting to stand by her man, who is lying to her. (Was it Knots Landing?) Anyhow, she's wearing really well. Note: You may enjoy it more, if you miss the first few seconds of the credits. I did and it helped me. When you see the end credits, you'll get what I mean The Wayne Kennedy character, who is really weird, takes this to a 7 rather than a 6.


There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.

Don't spend the time on this one.


In the twilight years of his career, Charles Bronson forged long-running partnerships with several directors, most notably J. Lee Thompson and Michael Winner. He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller. Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).

 Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson). Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist. Turns out - surprise, surprise - that Killian was right all along and someone is indeed out to eradicate her. The pair of them go on the run, pursued by the assassins.

 Everyone knows that the wife of an American President is known as The First Lady. For some reason, in this film they have renamed her 'One Mama'! Quite what the point of this is is anybody's guess, but it's indicative of the film's pointlessness as a whole. Most of the film's performances are lazy, and the script takes a heck of a long time to get to where it's going. If I had to label Assassination within a specific genre, I'd say it is supposed to be a 'thriller'. I'd say that with some reservations, however, as to say that it's a thriller it has precious few thrills.


I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like 'Cruel Romance' (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in 'The Insulted and the Injured' ('Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye'). 'Sibiriada' shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like 'Tango and Cash' and less forgettable like 'Runaway train'. I would prefer 'Kurochka Ryaba' to them...


There is a lot to like in this film, despite its humble trappings of a preachy PC tale about rape and the perp always faring better than the victim. The movie did create a fair bit of suspense in the mystery surrounding who was sending the notes. (I, for one, was sure it was the teacher. In fact, that would have been more probable plot-wise because the idea of the best-friend's boy-friend kind of came out of nowhere. I guess the point of that is that 'rape is omnipresent. You never know who it is going to be'.) Ms. Beller is luminous as always (yet see KB discussion board for my qualification of this statement). Like all preachy films the plot lasts 15 minutes past the climax so you might want to quit watching at that point. Unless you are really curious to find out what happens to Phillip. Blythe Danner, as the mom, is in the role she was born to play: the fretting, over-protective mom. Some good 70s scenes for 70s fans. (The dark bar that the father goes to in order to drink away his pain is all dark-stained beams, barrels, oak and cork). A must for Beller fans and highly recommended for fans of 70s High School melodrama or 70s kitsch in general.


William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in 'The Ex-Mrs. Bradford,' also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other 'Thin Man' type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.

Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and 'The Ex-Mrs. Bradford' is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a 'Bradford' film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.

The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, 'Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it,' it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.

Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were.


After Garbo's introduction to sound in Clarence Brown's 'Anna Christie', Jacques Feyder made a German version of the movie where all of the cast, except for Garbo, were different. While the American version is still more available in the USA and most of the American viewers have primarily seen this version, the Germna 'Anna Christie' is more likely to be viewed in Europe. As I have seen both films, I feel the right to compare the two closely-knit productions. Is Jacques Feyder's film different? Is it better than Clarence Brown's?

In this analysis, I would like to focus first on what the both movies have in common. They have identical sets, very similar scripts and the same chronologically presented scenes. Here, you also find the story of the young woman who comes back to her father after years of absence and is trying to start a new life. Here, you also have the humorous, though a bit shorter, sequence in the amusement park. However, when emphasizing Garbo herself, I address the first difference. She does not appear to cause such a curiosity while talking. The viewer concentrates more on her acting than on the way she speaks, which occurred, most probably, to 1931 viewers. Garbo was very good in American film and she is also very good here. Yet, to me, she seems even more genuine in the German version. It is noticeable that Garbo does not focus on the way she says the words that much (the effort that was artificially created by the sensation: GARBO TALKS!). Her German is not very well pronounced; yet no one cares: everything is perfectly understood. Therefore, I can easily say the same I did in my American version comment: Skaal Greta Garbo!

Yet, the film differs in one very important issue: the rest of the cast. Here comes the question: which portrayal seems more captivating, which one is better for sure? The differences are filled with varieties. Salka Viertel (or Salka Steuerman), Garbo's lifelong friend, does not do the equally great job as Marie Dressler in the role of Marthy Owens. She is not bad, she is different, sometimes overacts (from today's perspective) but is no longer that genuine in the role as Marie Dressler who still amuses us and whose moments have absolutely stood a test of time. Some people even claim that Dressler was better than Garbo in the film and that opinion, though appears to be questionable of course, carries some truth. Theo Shall is more sympathetic as Matt than Charles Bickford but when applied to him, this is not the matter of performance so much as the mater of looks.

Who shines in the German 'Anna Christie', who is really worth greatest attention is Hans Junkermann in the role of Chris Christopherson, Anna's father. George F. Marion vs Hans Junkermann is like a day vs night difference. Junkermann portrays a real alcohol addict, a man with hopes, with fears, who overdoes the care of his daughter. The scene of Anna's first meeting with her father is truly magnificent, the opening moment of Chris' conversation with Marthy is memorable particularly thanks to his facial expressions and a flawless performance. Junkermann is the Chris whom you like, who you sometimes laugh at, whom you sympathize with, who leaves a picture of a calm alcoholic sailor in your mind. Great!

If you have seen the American 'Anna Christie' and have a chance to get the German version, I would highly recommend to you this movie because it's a slightly different look at the story, a nice and accurate way to compare, a fine enrichment to Clarence Brown's movie and, foremost, a wonderful chance to discover a marvel of performance: Hans Junkermann's. Skaal or Prost, Hans Junkermann!


I have seen just about all of Miyazaki's films, and they are all beautiful and captivating. But this one rises above the rest. This movie totally impressed me!

I fell in love with Pazu and Sheeta, and their sweet, caring friendship. They were what made the movie for me. Of course, the animation is also superb and the music captures the feelings in the film perfectly. But the characters are the shining point in this movie: they are so well developed and full of personality.

Now, let me clarify: I'm really talking about the Japanese version of the movie (with English subs). While the English dub is good (mostly), it simply pales in comparison to the original language version. The voices are better, the dialogue, everything. So I suggest seeing (and hearing) the movie the way it originally was.


I knew about this as a similar programme as Jackass, and I saw one or two episodes on Freeview, and it is the same, only more extreme. Basically three Welsh guys, and one mad British bloke were brought together by love of skateboarding, and a complete disregard/masochistic pleasure to harm themselves and their health and safety. They have had puking, eating pubes-covered pizza, jumping in stinging nettles, naked paint balling, jokes on the smaller guy while heavily sleeping/snoring, stunts in a work place, e.g. army, cowboys, and many more insane stunts that cause bruises, bumps, blood and vomit, maybe not just for themselves. Starring Matthew Pritchard who does pretty much anything, Lee Dainton also up for just about anything, Dan Joyce (the British one) who hardly does much physical stuff and has a OTT laugh, and Pancho (Mike Locke) who does a lot, but is more popular for being short, fat and lazy. It was number something on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!


I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made 'The Postman' one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in 'Butterfly Effect'. These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo!


So far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring 'The Iron Rose'), until I found out about 'Night of the Hunted'. Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is  yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at.


Look...I've come to expect this level of acting from William Macy...the guy just keeps putting in terrific performances...but MEAT LOAF? Just when did His Loafness decide to leave Jim Steinman behind and throw his decidedly lower weight around in the wonderful world of Stanislavsky? Well...what can I say? I'm duly impressed. To paraphrase an old adage: 'It ain't the meat, it's the emotion'...and the Loaf is quietly buffing up his acting chops of late..

Laura Dern carries off the 40's look perfectly here...great job by the costume and hair departments...David Paymer is typecast but right on the money. Solid camera work throughout the flick. The plot line is reminiscent of 'Gentleman's Agreement' (post-WWII anti-semitism). Well worth your time...particularly for the growing legions of Bill Macy acolytes.


Playmania is extremely boring. This is the basis of the show. Mel or Shandi ask extremely easy questions that a 2 year old could answer at an extremely slow pace. This show lasts for 2 hours and they probably only play about 10 games in that period. People may like this show because the hosts are eye candy, but they're hotness completely is destroyed by the fact that they are so friggin annoying.

During the show they mention that we need more players a million times. The top 5 surveys that they do probably takes about 20 minutes out of the show. This show is probably one of the worst game shows ever made. One of the reasons they probably don't have callers is because the show is so cheap with the money. The most money I've ever seen them hand out was $210. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'game show' is canceled by the end of 2006.


A wonderful film, filled with great understated performance and sharp, intelligent dialogue. What really distinguishes the film, however, is that undercurrent of sadness throughout. The story is underscored by affairs, loneliness, suicide, disappointment, the fear of losing ones job in a world where that had disastrous consequences. Most of all it was set in a world that no longer existed, having been ripped apart by the beginning of World War II. In fact, the film is barely a comedy at all if you compare the percentage of serious scenes to the comic scenes. Yet funny it is--listen to Margaret Sullivan's harsh dismissal of Jimmy Stewart and watch his pained expression as he replies that her comments were a remarkable blend 'of poetry and meanness'. It's funny, pointed, and sad all at once. A remarkable achievement and one of the ten greatest screen comedies ever made.


The main problem with 'Power' is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere.

Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with '12 Angry Men' and 'Fail Safe'. It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman.

3/10

* / * * * *


I remember watching this as a child in the UK, mesmerized by the story and Laurence Olivier's narration. We would talk about nothing else at school the next day. I imagine the ratings for the first showing were huge. This is quite simply the best most comprehensive documentary series despite the fact they had to cut the story down to the bone they managed to capture so much. What is interesting is that the battles of Britain and North Africa were pivotal yet are widely unrecognized as such by Americans. The series captures the rivalry between Mountbatten and the American generals, the suffering of German troops on the Eastern front, the maltreatment of Japanese prisoners of war by American troops. The images of the holocaust made me, a non-Jewish European, feel forever guilty about the treatment of the Jewish people. I don't know why this is not number one in the IMDb rankings. Perhaps they are showing their bias against documentaries. Spoiler - we win.


The first music video I ever saw, Thriller, my mom told me that she took me home from the hospital and when we arrived, my sister had MTV on the TV and Thriller was playing, my mom said that I smiled. Silly I know, but I have loved Michael Jackson since that day, the music video Thriller inspired me to dance, still I have the dance memorized to this day. I even performed it for an audience 3 times! Words cannot describe the power of this song that makes you wanna sing and dance, but Michael of course had to raise the bar for MTV at the time by signing on American Werewolf in London director John Landis and directing the one, the only, Thriller.

Michael and his date, Ola Ray, run out of gas in a dark, wooded area. They walk off into the forest, and Michael asks her if she would like to go steady. She accepts and he gives her a ring. He warns her, however, that he is not like other guys, no really, not like the other guys. A full moon appears, and Michael begins convulsing in agony  transforming into a horrifying werewolf! His date shrieks and runs away, but the werewolf catches up, knocking her down and begins lunging at her with its claws. The scene cuts away to a movie theater where Michael and his date are actually watching this scene unfold in a movie called Thriller. Michael smiles but his date is frightened, and tells him she's leaving. Michael catches up to her, and says that it's only a movie, but she doesn't like his jokes on her and she starts walking away. Michael and his date then walk down a foggy street, and he teases her with the opening verses of Thriller. They pass a graveyard, where corpses suddenly begin to rise from their graves as Vincent Price performs his rap. Michael and his date then find themselves surrounded by the zombies, and suddenly, Michael becomes a zombie himself. Michael and the undead perform an elaborate song and dance number together, followed by the chorus of Thriller.

Thriller is arguably the best music video of all time, funny thing is people who wanna argue that is with other Michael Jackson videos, but what makes Thriller so special is the dance, the story, the effects, this at the time was the most expensive music video of it's day. Michael of course rose that bar again with his famous music video Scream and then again with Ghosts. But say what you will, Michael was the star of the 1980's, there was no celebrity like him, he loved the life, he lived it, breathed it and embraced it. Thriller is proof that he was willing to work to make the best and that's what we got with the legend that is Thriller.

10/10


Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.


Great show! About time a reality TV show comes along that closes generation gaps. Contestants range in ages, some seem old enough to have watched the movie when it first came out. And others, looked so young that perhaps parents or teachers handed down the movie hoping it would touch their lives the way it once touch them. Grease has truly become an American icon. Grease is a fun and entertaining movie in which the young and old can relate to. 'You're The One That We Want' is sure to gain even more Grease followers. The only thing I wish there had been more of is character history, then again it is kind of nice to leave some of it to the nostalgic imagination of the 50's. Cant wait to watch the next show...and then on Broadway!!!


I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.

Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.

I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot.


This movie pops up now and again on the ABC in Australia at about 3 am in the morning.

It starts off with the scene of a bus crash in London.

The films has got flashbacks of each character as the film progresses, plus the lapsed photography of Big Ben winding back, to symbolise what events occurred thirteen hours ago, up until the bus crash.

It took me a while to understand it, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

If Sean Cunningham and Quentin Tarrantino got together and made a film, this may be the result - due to the flashbacks and small stories tying in, and deaths.

I am unsure of the main characters, as it has been a while since I have seen it, but a rare gem indeed.


Who really wants to see that? Disgusting violence, disgusting sex, for such a long time. I do not want to, but I always stayed true to my philosophy to watch any movie as bad as it may be. This was the hardest (right after 'Next Friday').

It's basically just crap. How can you possibly call it anything else? The story of a Roman emperor as an excuse for gore and T&A. Yeah, yeah, 'Hey, it's realistic, they have been like this.' Fine, but why bother us with it? I don't care if it has been like this (and there are a lot of scenes where I truly doubt it). The point is, why should anyone wanna see it? Problem is, there is only one reason you could like the film and that would be that you like violence. There's nothing special about it, just cruelty. You can say 'Cool!' as you'd say in splatter-slasher-movie. But horror movies with violence at least can give you chills and excitement, maybe characters you care about. But here everything is dark, dull and boring. Every character is mad. 'The story of an emperor who can't deal with his power'. What? In the very first scene he runs naked through the woods with his sister! I have no problem saying that we saw a madman for 2 1/2 hours.

But maybe you get turned on by seeing Helen Mirren, being pregnant and dancing. Or 5 minutes of hardcore scenes that some people see as the message of the movie. Or castration, yeah right, that was fun! Real birth scenes, how hilarious! Humans, animals, who cares, let's just treat them as toys.

I don't care what anyone says, this is no movie, this is just 2 1/2 hours of blood and sex, degrading and disgusting. Go watch a porn movie if you want sex or watch a horror flick if you want violence. At least those movies don't pretend to be some artistic masterpiece. And they are shorter.

[0/10] [6 (1+ - 6-)] [0/4]


'L'Ossessa' (released in English under many titles and the eeriest of them certainly is 'The eerie midnight horror show') is one of the best Italian rip-offs of 'The Exorcist'. To really appreciate this film you should have a sense of humor. 'L'Ossessa' is at the same time sleazy (but naive), pathetic and sometimes even moving.

Danila (Stella Carnacina), an art student, goes to an old church to see the statue she's going to restore. It's a wooden statue of Christ, a demonic Christ, maybe already overcome by evil, or fighting against it, or perhaps planning dark deeds. The face shows infinite torment. The statue dates from the 15th century. Danila is impressed by the mastery shown by the sculptor - the statue seems almost alive! She lives with her parents. Her mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) lives a dissolute life and doesn't care too much for keeping up appearances. Her father Mario (Chris Avram) observes everything with disenchanted eyes.

The wooden statue will soon assume a human form (Ivan Rassimov) and possess Danila in the carnal and spiritual sense. An amazing scene! The poor Danila, from now on, will suffer the torments of hell.

Danila (the lovely Stella Carnacina) was ravished, violated, possessed by the devil and now following his orders, she will try to seduce others. Ain't she emulating her sleazy mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) who feels great pleasure when her lover whips her with a bunch of roses? There is a scene so ridiculous as to be sublime and moving, when Stella Carnacina runs in despair through the narrow streets (possessed by the devil, remember?) of a small Italian town screaming her heart out. Luigi Pistilli is a very good exorcist. His performance is, as usual, intense. The exorcism scenes (particularlly the final battle) are very, very amateurish, but this will only enhance the fun (and/or emotion?) if you've really got a sense of humor.

Stella Carnacina is beautiful and looks fresh and innocent, and that's a factor that adds to your pleasure when she's naked, but I think that the film could have explored more her natural beauty. Lucretia Love is a very good sleaze companion (her nude scene with the roses... well.:)

Other Italian exorcist rip-offs I would like to recommend for you are:

Malabimba (very sleazy and released uncut and digitally restored)

'Evil Eye' (Malocchio) - 'The Exorcist' was the main source of inspiration for 'Evil Eye', but others films, like, for instance, 'Rosemary's Baby' should also be taken into account. 'Evil Eye' is completely over the top. Not that sleazy but with plenty of gorgeous Italian and Spanish actresses. You'll be drooling all over the film. The film is ridiculous, the story doesn't make any sense, but if you see it in the right mood you might feel moved! - a diabolical sect, possession, murders, despair, love, investigation and beautiful women all around. A wild ride!

If you liked 'Evil Eye', see also 'Ring of Darkness' (Un'Ombra nell'ombra). This film can be found in the alternative market. Search this title in the IMDb. There are good reviews about it.

P.S. - 'L'Ossessa' has many different faces. It's exploitative, but it can also be serious and moving. It's cheap, cheesy... sleazy (but not that much) and it has an underlying 'moral' message. This strange brew can sometimes be very funny. We all already know that 'L'Ossessa' is an 'Exorcist' rip-off so why can't we see it on its own terms? Yes, Mario Gariazzo was trying to earn a fast buck, but he was able get the most out of a shoestring budget. The story is well told, the film is atmospheric and overall the actors are committed to their roles. See the film with an open mind and you may discover two or three new things.


The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) 'borrowed' from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.

But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than 'Supernova' which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.

Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.

A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, 'No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed.' Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of 'Don't be so damn stupid in the first place.' Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid 'Supernova' as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.

One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.


The movie was 'OK'. Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a 'cute' movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster.


It must be said that the director of The Cell, Tarsem Singh, has quite handily established himself with his first feature, which happens to rank as one of the most visually astounding films in contemporary cinema.

The Cell is more of a visceral experience than a film. As a thriller, it rises above most of its peers, with competent editing and a chilling score effectively providing an exceptionally suspenseful atmosphere. However, it is ultimately Tarsem's skill for elaborate and disturbing set design and imagery that carries the film's jolting sense of terror.

As with several recent films, I have been shocked by the alarming hypocrisy among those who have commented negatively about The Cell; in defence of the film, I will address a few of these issues. The plot appears to be the main concern, and while it is not revolutionary and borrows heavily from The Silence of the Lambs, it was never intended to be the most important aspect of the film; the plot itself is a vehicle through which Tarsem's vision--simultaneously horrifying and wondrous--is presented to the audience, much in the same way that the plot of The Silence of the Lambs is secondary to the fascinating study of its two lead characters, Lecter and Starling. While The Silence of the Lambs is clearly the superior film, it is irrational for one to condemn the plot of The Cell, and in the same breath, praise that of The Silence of the Lambs.

My final concern is the mention of 'MTV style' directing. It pains me to see the condemnation of directors who use innovative camera and cinematography techniques. A camera has the potential to be much more than simply a tool with which to record events; angles, pans, colour adjustment, and so forth, are all used to their full extent in The Cell with the purpose of creating the sense of a dream-like state that could not have been otherwise achieved. This is essential to the film, as the entire premise behind it is the visualization of a serial killer's subconscious. If you simply want a series of static shots, stick to stage plays and give up cinema altogether.

That being said, The Cell is thoroughly entertaining, terrifying, and breathtaking in both its pacing and design. Anyone who is able to look past the--perhaps uninspired, yet never dull--screenplay will find one of the best films of the year 2000.


It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.

The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.

Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.

I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work.


I think this movie is my favorite movie. I am not sure why, but it is. Julia Duffy has been my favorite actress for awhile, and when I saw this, I went crazy. It's sort of romantic, and I definitely recommend this movie.


This movie was disturbing, not because of the subject matter but because of the way it was handled. The extremely overweight mother (Angela) did not even make it on the cover of the video case when most of the rest of the cast did. This is not fair but is a statement in itself. I also notice her picture is missing from IMDb (maybe her own choice) and it looks like this is her only film ever? The language in this movie was crude beyond necessity. Watched with my 10yr old son because it was rated PG in Canada and the language coming out of their mouths was shameful & disgusting. Never did appreciate Shirley Maclain like so many others seem to.

LOVE Kathy Bates and always will. Sinese's part was annoying.

The little boy Alex is a great little actor. I'll have to see what else he's been up to lately..


This is a complete Hoax...

The movie clearly has been shot in north western Indian state of Rajasthan. Look at the chase scene - the vehicles are Indian; the writing all over is Hindi - language used in India. The drive through is on typical Jaipur streets. Also the palace is in Amer - about 10 miles from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The film-makers in their (about the film) in DVD Bonus seem to make it sound that they risked their lives shooting in Kabul and around. Almost all of their action scenes are shot in India. The scene where they see a group singing around fire is so fake that they did not even think about changing it to Afgani folk song. They just recorded the Rajasthani folk song. How do I know it because I have traveled that area extensively. They are just on the band-wagon to make big on the issue. I do challenge the film makers to deny it.


I had a bit of hope for this hour long film made up of footage from old Poverty Row movies. Certainly it had the possibility to seem like more than a home video mass marketed to the world. Unfortunately while funny this movie still feels like a home movie, but with stock footage spliced in.

The plot concerns the planned reading of a will on a liner at midnight somewhere in the tropics. The ship sinks and well...thats the movie.

The film promises Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney and others being lifted from old movies to interact with new footage. We get that alright, but mostly we get lots of new video footage made to look like scratchy black and white film, in which new actors prance about. Old footage is inter-cut mostly to set the scene, but very little of the old and new actually matches so its clearly just a put on. Its not very convincing and is very disappointing for someone like me was looking for a better constructed film.

Still if you know and love the old Poverty Row films, (its very spoofy) this might be worth a viewing. I would warn against buying this but it can be had for about five bucks, the price of a rental) so the choice is yours (Though if you can get away with not paying for it do so).

Disappointing.


Doctor Feinstone is a dentist.He has a beautiful wife and a huge house with a pool.Suddenly he discovers that his wife is making out with the pool attendant-he realises that behind everything clean,there is decay.He starts to torture his patients...Corbin Bernsen is brilliant as the deranged dentist-he is completely believable.There is surprisingly little gore but the scenes of dental torture are quite nasty and grotesque.Highly recommended.'The Dentist 2' is also worth checking out!


solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that 'it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.') commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node.


Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a 'demons and death' rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.

Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.


Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is based on somewhat pat formula by now of Japanese school drama anime. The formula somewhat goes like this:

1. The main protagonist comes from world outside the normal society, and has super powers.

2. There's a very beautiful and sexy girl in a supporting role.

3. A normal character is in there who shares the main role in the story.

4. Unusual things happens in an usual social settings.

5. Sometimes the story is about the main protagonist, and the normal character that connects to the existence or destruction of the world.

6. Absolutely no effort is spent by anyone to gain all the magical powers. They just have it.

7. Usually, people outside of this tight nit group is not aware of their super powers, and goes on with their daily lives.

So there you have it. Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi is made along these lines which became the success formula for comics and anime in Japan. Even though it follows a pat formula, the series is superbly crafted and the episodes are always set in an interesting back drop within the normal social settings which always morphs into unusual circumstances surrounding Haruhi Suzumiya. Each player in the story brings some unusual insight into the daily life that usually we are not aware of. The philosophical twist of their insights are what makes this series extra entertaining. The visuals are first rate, and done beautifully.

The crazy ideas Haruhi always seem to come up with along with complicated settings of the story may give you headache from time to time. It's further complicated by the fact that the episodes are played out of sequence which further adds to the confusion. When I watched the episodes in the chronological sequence, some of the plots finally made sense. I recommend you do the same. It's much more entertaining to watch the series this way. Google

List_of_The_Melancholy_of_Haruhi_Suzumiya_episodes

for the correct sequence of all the episodes. And oh, you might notice the headache while you're watching this like I did. Let me know if you had it too.


Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.

Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.

Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.

Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.

Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'The Passion of the Christ' maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.

It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy 'I hope they missed' Irons were the best presenters of the night.

Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.

4/10


like i'm sure other people have said this guy isn't a very worthwhile subject. sure, our society has a morbid fascination with death, and it's funny hearing him talk about how much he smokes and how much coffee he drinks, but he's into giving himself an unworthy mystique. anyway, the bottom line is that he's a moron racist using feeble methods to try to disprove the mountain of evidence of the holocaust, and as such he should be forgotten by time. but Morris is in love with any kind of curiosities, which normally i wouldn't fault him for.


First let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this 'documentary.' The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.

The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.

The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) 'virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]' I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with 'isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff.' The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say 'oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?' It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.


When 'Madame' decides to let her cats inherit her it spells trouble. The snobbish Butler Edgar who is next in line to inherit decides to get rid of the cats. Thereby the story can begin and the cats can go on an adventure that would otherwise have been impossible. An adventure that lets them meet the charming, but not altogether trustworthy cat O'Malley. He helps them through many dangerous and funny situations until the inevitable happy end.

The force of this movie is in its humor and music. Edgar is simply hilarious as the insulted butler who is out to settle the score and of course he himself takes some serious beatings. One of the best scene contains him being chased by the two dogs Lafayette and Napoleon. The score is great and like in 'the Jungle Book' you have scenes that is almost 'musical' in the sense that the story doesn't progress and the focus is to let the protagonists express themselves via dance. And of course we like, that the score is quite Jazzy.

And of course it's not only me but also my children who love this one.

Regards Simon


This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie 'Stauffenberg' from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.


One of the most popular rentals at my local video store is not Borat or The Departed but a 2005 documentary about Jesus Christ called The God Who Wasn't There by director Brian Flemming, an ex-Christian Fundamentalist. Flemming, in his 62-minute documentary, asserts that Jesus was not a historical figure but a legend based solely on Pagan traditions. Using interviews with authors, philosophers, and historians to debunk the long-held Christian belief that Jesus, the son of God, lived among men, was crucified, and was resurrected, Flemming compares the Christ story with those of cult figures Isis and Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus and Adonis in Greek mythology, and Roman mystery cults such as Mithraism and finds many surprising similarities.

In addition to his evidence about Pagan cults, he also states that the earliest sources for the Christ story, the four gospels, were written forty or fifty years after the date given for Jesus' crucifixion and that the letters of St. Paul show little evidence of Jesus being a flesh and blood figure. Flemming, unfortunately however, is not out to conduct a solid investigation of the truth about Jesus' life but to use the subject only as a point of departure for a full throttle attack on Christianity and all religion. Most of the interviews are with those philosophically aligned with the director including avowed atheists such as Biologist Richard Dawkins and author Sam Price. The only Christians interviewed are those on the fringe such as Scott Butcher, the creator of the website Rapture Letters.com, and Ronald Sipus, principal of the fundamentalist Village Christian School, which Flemming attended as a boy.

Like Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, his interview with Sipus is so contentious that Sipus walks out in the middle. In a sarcastic tone, Flemming tells us how wrong Christianity was wrong about the sun revolving around the earth, then points to atrocities committed in the name of Christianity such as those by cult leader Charles Manson who killed 11 people and Dena Schlosser, who cut her baby's arm off for God. He also lifts a statement from a book by LaHaye and Jenkins that says that Christians 'look forward to the day when all non-Christians are thrown into a lake of fire, howling and screeching.' To further turn us against Christianity, Flemming shows us extended clips from Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, detailing in minute detail each scene of violence and torture. What could have been a serious discussion on a very interesting subject eventually becomes a childish rant and a polemic against all religion. In the process of condemning those who used Christianity to commit unspeakable acts, he ignores such people as socialist Muriel Lester, a famous Christian pacifist, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, a Mayan Indian of Guatemala who helped found the Revolutionary Christians and received the Nobel peace prize in recognition of her work for social justice, and Mother Teresa, whose work was about respect for each individual's worth and dignity.

His most telling argument is his comparison of Christian doctrine with the Pagan cults and he makes some good points, yet Flemming does not tell us that while some aspects of these cults may resemble Christian doctrines, there are no texts or source materials for these cults before 300AD, long after the New Testament. Also it is important to note one major difference. The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. This is anathema to Christianity which believes that a Church hierarchy including priests and bishops all the way up to the Pope are required to interpret God's will to mankind.

Although I am not a Christian and have some doubts about whether or not Jesus Christ was in fact a historical figure, the truth is that, in the long scheme of things, it may not matter. What matters is that a message was introduced to mankind and spread around the world that contributed to mankind's spiritual evolution. Regardless of the distortions and crimes later committed in its name and there were many, Christianity as conceived was a doctrine of compassion and love, and a moral and ethical code that furthered respect for our fellow man.

While I applaud the fact that the film was made and that a taboo topic was discussed, what is sorely needed is not another divisive attempt to use religion as a field of combat but to see it as a common thread that can bring the world's people together. While there is room for debate and discussion on religious subjects, in the words of Annie Besant, 'spiritual truths are best seen in the clear air of brotherhood and mutual respect. The God Who Wasn't There is recommended only for those whose idea of a good time is to trash the religion of others.


The British noble Sir Ronald Burton (Richard Greene) decides to search his two best friends that have disappeared after visiting Count Karl von Bruno (Stephen MaNally), an evil and powerful man who lives in the Black Castle. Sir Burton travels undercover with another identity, since he fought against Count von Bruno in Afrika with his two missing friends and the count lost one eye in a battle. When he arrives in the castle, he is invited to hunt in the Black Forest around the castle with the count,.while he looks for evidences that the count has killed his friends. Later, he and the count's wife, Countess Elga von Bruno (Rita Corday), fall in love for each other and with the support of Dr. Meissen (Boris Karloff), Sir Burton and the countess try to escape from the claws of Count von Bruno. 'The Black Castle' is an excellent movie from a romantic time, with action, romance, mystery and even horror. The story is gripping, and is a great entertainment for any audience. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'O Castelo do Pavor' ('The Castle of the Fear')


I went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.

Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.

2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.

4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.

5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that bad.


This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed 'dramatic' turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place.

Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the 'brilliant' idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous 'kindness'.

I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?

It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in 'Eight-Legged Freaks' and she was okay in 'Anaconda'. But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the 'fully monty' of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming.

Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film.

I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of 'The Hitchhiker', then I might advise watching this.

And Kari, please start acting in some better films!


I'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of 'the first degree of the seven fold ray', I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.

In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by 'A. Hall'. But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?

With it's disjointed scenes, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like 'Psycho' or 'North by Northwest'.


This has got to be the funniest movie I have seen in forever. Chritopher Guest is truly talented. He has a gift for humor. I almost died laughing. Actually, when I saw this in theaters, I considered walking out because the movie was so dumb. But it is dumb in a good way. It is funny-dumb. And this is a really good combination. You will be laughing from start to end.

This mockumentary style film follows an array of characters all competing at the Kennel Club Dog Show. The cast includes Parker Posey, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, John Michael Higgens, Michael McKean, Larry Miller, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge and tons more.

This is a truly funny movie that will have everyone laughing. Someone born without a personality would laugh at this film. It is presented in widescreen to give the image that you are viewing an actual documentary and that is probably what adds to the hilarity. BEST IN SHOW: 5/5.


`Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film.

Within the shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of `Damon Runyonesque' characters.<br /><br />Their struggles with moral dilemmas, dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than relying upon `in-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship between Inez and Mac/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is outstanding

The script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national distribution.

Conrad F. Toepfer