If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s/early 70s Euro sex movies can give off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode ! Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander (immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity. I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet, but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!!


I have seen this movie only once, several years ago. But I remember liking it a lot.

**Spoilers ahead** An old famous opera singer is retired and she decides to give all the money she has to her cats. Her butler hears this and plots to get rid of the cats so he can have the fortune. He puts knockout drops in their milk. When they wake up, they find themselves miles away. They must journey back to their house before it is too late. With the help of an independent-minded tomcat and other animal accomplices, while evading the butler and foiling his plan.

Could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse.

My Score: 7/10.


'Dick Tracy' is one of our family's favorites -- the actors are great -- the art direction is exceptional -- the music is magic. It's not supposed to be 'To Kill A Mockingbird' -- it's a fun experience.

Stephen Sondhemim's songs are stellar: 'Back in Business' is energetic, 'Sooner or Later' is just right, 'What Can You Lose' is haunting -- even tunes like 'Live Alone and Like It' add to the story

Got to love the giddily over-the-top performances of Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Glenn Headly, Charlie Korsmo, Mandy Patinkin, James Caan, Dick Van Dyke, supporting villains... The list is far too long. And, yes -- even Madonna and Warren Beatty are awesome. Written with a smile a minute (how many times have we looked at each other and said, 'Wait a minute -- I'm having a thought -- it's gone!'?).

However, one of most telling things about in this film is that everyone involved seems to be having a good time -- and that above all adds to the enjoyment for the viewer. So, if you haven't already, why not give 'Dick Tracy' a chance -- accept it for what it is -- a Sunday comic strip brought to life -- and in a wonderful way!!


I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the 'expert' talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.

Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:

-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.

And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!

Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.

On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).

Save your time and money: don't see this movie.


I have just watched this movie for the first time today, and just loved it...

Yes it is simple in it's storyline, the sweetest love story,and how any female could not fall in love with Callum Blue beats me...

The scenery in Italy was as you would expect, Beautiful, the baddies lost in the end,and for the two lovebirds to be reunited at the end, was wonderful, but that scene where a certain Italian was sweeping away the confetti after Eric and Wanda's Wedding, perfection!.

Have a cup of tea and watch a fantastic movie, yes, better have a tissue ready and be enthralled, I know I was and hope to get it on DVD real soon. All the actors played their parts perfectly, this was a WW2 film you could believe in as it was so realistic, and without going over the top as in other films...


It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.

Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.


I went to see this film because it was recommended to my wife and she wanted to go.

We were both trying to look at our watches well before the film ended, in order to see how much more we had to endure. Two hours and six minutes long, it is. It's divided roughly equally between battle scenes (about a dozen of them, all more or less interchangeable), and plot development.

One would have thought that with the subject being the son of a minor tribal chief who conquers half the world, plotting would have been relatively easy. There's a fair bit of raw material there from which to make a pretty good story. However the writers fluffed it completely. We get no real history. We get instead a Hollywood version of history.

What sustains young Temudjin through his long -- almost endless, actually, or so they seem to the viewer -- tribulations? Why, the love of a good woman, of course.

How does he get out of prison? Well, an old monk, who recognizes his innate goodness and greatness, sets out across the continent to take to this good woman a talisman that symbolises Temudjin's love for her, dropping dead just close enough to her for her to find him as he lies there, talisman in his hand. And of course she then goes and, having (inexplicably) become rich and powerful, rescues him.

How does he escape from the shackles? Well, he goes off to the shrine of the great wolf-god Tengri (or some such name) and Tengri sets him free by magic. Yeah, right.

Why does he want to become ruler of the Mongols? The wolf-god again, apparently. Off goes Temudjin to ask for guidance, and -- surprise! surprise! -- he gets it. 'Laws,' he says to himself. 'What the Mongols need are laws. Good, simple ones.' Golly, it was impressive.

And then finally, how does he win the decisive battle against his rival's more powerful forces? Better tactics, certainly, but also through the aid of the good old wolf-god again, who sends a storm at the height of the battle. All the troops cower as the thunder rolls and the lightning flashes (Mongols are scared of thunder, you see) -- but not our Temudjin. The troops, completely wowed by his bravery, acclaim him king!

I don't know what induces people to keep producing this kind of garbage. The funny thing is it's interspersed with all sorts of gritty realism: lots of slurping of milk, dirt and violence. It's as if the producers of this movie wanted to get the trivial things right so that viewers wouldn't notice how infantile some of the big stuff is.

There's heaps of violence in graphic close-up: slashings, impalings, spouts of blood, sprays of blood, clouds of blood -- the blood guys had a great time, actually. Despite the realism, it's impossible to take seriously.

I must mention the ludicrous CGI final battle scene. How anyone can think these things look realistic is beyond me. They don't. Oh, and it's all shot in the standard Hollywood style -- breathtaking panoramas for the spectacular scenery, and the super-close-up Stedicam stuff for the battle scenes. And the standard Dolby super-sound-effects of whumps and thumps and the constant low-frequency hum to sustain tension.

Tedious.

Avoid.


This film has the language, the style and the attitude down ... plus greats rides from Occy (a world champ) and the great Jerry Lopez. John Philbin as Turtle has the surf pidgin down, and the surfing scenes are still the best ever. A true classic that can be seen many times. Nia Peeples is a babe, and Laird Hamilton shows the early stuff that has made him the world's number one extreme surfer.


EIGHTEEN as written and directed by Richard Bell may have a few too many stories to tell simultaneously for a 102 minute movie to completely succeed, but there is such a fine sense of commitment on the part of all the cast and crew that the viewer ends up wanting the movie to work - and so it does. Yes, aspects could have been finessed if the producers had more money to spend on the final cut, but as a small independent movie from Canada this is a tender, gently humorous, very touching tale about vulnerability and communication and commitment. It works on many levels.

In a very well choreographed opening we are voyeurs at a family dinner where obviously something has gone awry and results in a father and two sons taking off in a car and having an accident in which one of the sons is killed. With an introduction like that the mood is set for the surviving 18-year old Pip son (Paul Anthony - looking far too old for credibility as a teenager) to desert his family and live on the streets. He meets Clark (Clarence Sponagle) a male prostitute who gives Pip food and shelter, Jenny (the very fine Carly Pope) who saves him from a bashing by her associate Derek (Ryan McDonell) and becomes romantically entangled with Pip, and Father Chris (Alan Cumming) in a finely wrought sympathetic role as a priest. It is Pip's 18th birthday and his father (Serge Houde) traces Pip down to give him a present from his deceased grandfather with instructions the gift should be opened on Pip's 18th birthday.

Pip, though drinking too much and full of anger, pawns the tape machine but keeps the tape and begins to listen to the words of his grandfather Jason (voice by Ian McKellen) who recounts his own 18th birthday in WW II in France where he (now the very sensitive actor Brendan Fletcher) has an experience with a wounded medic named Macauley (Mark Hildreth, also superb) and reflects on his one night marriage with a cabaret singer Hannah (Thea Gill of 'Queer as Folk' fame and a fine singer and actress here), only for something to live for during the war: Jason offers succor to Macauley as he dies, with a beautiful scene of redemption for he two men at the end. The parallels of Pip and grandfather Jason interplay every time Pip listens to the tape and lead Pip to ultimately alter his view of life and love. Subplots include Clark's isolated existence as a hustler being altered by Jeff (David Beazely - in a surprisingly fine film debut) who simply wants to be loved; by an unexpected pregnancy between Jenny and Pip; by the trust Father Chris instills in both Pip and Clark in a good shepherd's manner: and by a flashback to the car accident where Pip could have saved his brother Daniel (Paul Dzenkiw) from an abusive act at the hands of his father, just before the accident, but failed to do so, opening his deep guilt and resultant misplaced anger, mirrored by his grandfather's taped experiences. Each of these subplots pulls together at the end, creating a sense of closure for each of the people involved.

There are aspects of this film that make it seem like a big budget production: the musical score by Bramwell Tovey is performed by the Vancouver Symphony members, the cinematography by Kevin Van Niekerk is aptly atmospheric, and the general quality of acting by this Canadian cast is very fine. Though Paul Anthony handles his role well, casting a very young teenager in the pivotal main role would have made the story work much better, and Richard Bell, with only one other film 'Two Brothers' on his resume, gives promise of a young talent to watch. Despite the shortcomings, EIGHTEEN is a worthwhile film and deserves attention. Grady Harp


Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father 'The Highwayman,' who later commits suicide. '20 years later' grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to 'master their own fears' at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.

The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!


After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.

While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.

I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The highlight of the movie is a comparison between the smell of natural gas and a dirty vagina.

The acting is pathetic. I know acting is hard work and stuff, but that's why it should be left to real actors. Watching these people act is like watching Michael J. Fox perform brain surgery. It's shaky at best.

One of the other comments would have you believe that the movie is saved by the acting talents of Dan Gordon as Chris. Only Dan himself or maybe his mother could believe that was good acting.

The special effects in this movie were terrible. The worst special effects were for the gas explosion in the lighthouse. It looked like someone was shining an orange light up from the bottom of a model constructed from a refrigerator box. Sure there was a little bit of computer animation layered over top, but it didn't help. I suspect that the special effects on this movie were created and rendered using a single Amiga computer from the late 80s.


I am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.

I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals.

I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.


I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.

Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.

The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap.


'Goodbye, Mr. Chips' is a superbly written and photographed musical version of the classic 1939 film. Aside from Peter O'Toole's wonderfully controlled, understated performance as the pedantic schoolmaster who finds love and is changed by it, the film contains hundreds of stunning visuals, from Grecian ruins to London side streets to an extended countryside montage. The music and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse have been criticized as being dull or not-up-to par for film musicals, but they are used to enhance the story rather than tell it. Many songs are used to underscore montages or scenes; the few that don't are relegated to 'show biz' numbers. In this manner, the songs do not intrude upon this delicate story but heighten what the characters are thinking or feeling. 'Where Did My Childhood Go?', 'Walk Through the World With Me', and 'You and I' are especially effective. An absorbing, brilliantly acted, directed and written film.


I can't believe that there are people out there who voted 10 for this garbage! Have any of you gained access to a computer in the madhouse where you are undoubtably kept, or is there a special colony where especially crass people are secretly imprisoned that I don't know about?

If I was to say what I really thought of this film, none of it would get published.

To begin with its 'star' is a no talent idiot who acts like a bad impersonator of Jim Carrey who has hoovered enough angel dust up his nose to resurface the Sahara desert. His name will be a total guarantee that I will not watch a future film with him in it - even if he plays a rock hidden by a crowd.

As for the 'plot'. One more crime that we can chalk up to the Nazis is that they were so awful that they can be considered fair game as 'baddies' in tripe like this; mere criminals and murderers would have the audience on their side in a trice.

To the people who made this movie - Give up making films and if not then confine yourself to making advertisements, where your efforts will at least have the virtue of being fleeting in duration.

Finally, a criticism of IMDB - Why don't you have the facility to vote 'Zero' for a film? Or perhaps not. To express my contempt for this tripe I would then have to vote double zero, or something.


Hilarious show with so many great stories, that it reflects the world today as we know it, in such a funny way it literally stole my laughters for other shows. I laughed so hard that I just found any other comedy shows unfunny. The unique confessions of each characters is a great original technique that just makes the show funny and very humorous. You may think that this is an average comedy show about hard life with a family. That's what I thought at first but I found out that it holds new and unique techniques that completely sets it apart from any other average comedy show. Michael Rapaport is a star. I sure wish that this show wasn't canceled.


This time, the lovable dimwit gets summoned for jury duty, where a corrupt attorney notices that he looks like a jailbird who wants to break out, so the two get switched. Of course, most of the movie is a series of gags; in 'Ernest Goes to Jail', most of the gags relate to electricity. I really liked the whole vacuum cleaner sequence early on. Overall, the point of the movie is just to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. This is possibly the ultimate movie that you watch with a bud. It's quite safe to say that Jim Varney will truly be missed. Knowwhaddamean? FYI: the only other cast member whom I recognized was Randall 'Tex' Cobb, who played Lyle. You've surely seen him somewhere.


THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'An Officer and a Gentleman'. Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note 'Dragnet' performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song 'If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will'? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff!


Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprised

with this movie. James 'I did some things to Farrah Fawcett' Orr

co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guy

named Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have been

incredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball game

when he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartender

Mike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new life

isn't exactly as he hoped it would be.

I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have given

it mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting and

pulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enough

funny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it really

good. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. Jon

Lovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine in

their roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It's

just a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, I

highly recommend you check


Reviewed at the World Premiere screening Sept. 9, 2006 at the Isabel Bader Theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).

This had an interesting premise but seemed to go on too long with too many shots of piles of eWaste (recycled computers, keyboards, cables etc. shipped over to China by the ton and then sorted and remade into new products to sell back) and other desolation.

The filmmakers tried to get more people interviews to boost the human element but were frequently prevented from doing so due to Chinese censorship. Still, what was there was interesting. The bits of a Shanghai high end real estate agent preening and strutting around showing off her luxurious mansion and gardens, intercut with the scenes of others living in medieval conditions were especially striking. The opening tracking shot of a 480m factory floor was quite something as well. Scenes of the activity at the Three Gorges Dam project were also a complement to the Jia Khang-je films at TIFF (the feature Still Life/Sanxia Haoren & the documentary Dong) which were also built around that subject.

Director Jennifer Baichwal, Producer Nick de Pencier, Cinematographer Peter Mettler and subject Edward Burtynsky were all there on stage for a Q&A after the world premiere. Producer Noah Weinzweig was introduced from the audience and was thanked as the most key person that assisted in the on the ground access in China itself.


I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.


'Casomai' is a masterful tale depicting the story of a young couple who wade through the murky waters of marriage. The story is very believable in telling the strange see-saw between oblivion and continuous interference by others, which is fairly typical in Italy (one may wonder whether such happenings are different elsewhere, though). Pavignano and D'Alatri were very good at writing, and that is one of the strong points of the movie. Acting by Stefania Rocca and Fabio Volo is sober and gripping. And the figure of the sympathetic priest is funny and well-rounded. All in all, a truly deserving movie, probably one of the best Italian movies of the year.


The coming attractions to 'The Order' make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.

First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.

For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!


While the dog was cute, the film was not. It wasn't the premise, or the theme that was a problem. The premise had great possibilities for humor and pathos both. The theme is a worthy one. Helping other people is more important than amassing a fortune.

Sadly, the adorable dog, the unique premise, and the theme were undercut by poor acting, stilted dialogue, and amateurish filming.

Even my youngest child who will sit through almost anything gave up before we had gotten halfway through. How many times can that dog run up and down the same hallway? I can't spoil it for you, as I never saw the end. It just was not worth watching all the way to the end.


'Boogie Nights' is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over.


Years ago, I found a 'bargain bin' copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the 'poverty row' studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.

The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some 'red herrings' (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the 'screaming lady' and provides little new in each film.

Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able.


I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.

From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key 'thrilling' moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The 'horror' scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the 'special effects' and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere.

This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed.


This superb film draws on a variety of talented actors and musicians at the top of their form - Levant, Crosby, Martin, Rathbone, Manone are completely at home in the story that apparently was supplied by Billy Wilder. One would love to know more about how much he had to do with it, because it's an exceptionally clever variation on the sterile master/fertile servant tale - nearly an allegory of the entertainment industry, run by dried-up numskulls, but made into a vibrant world of art and play by an exploited underclass of nobodies and non-WASPs. Looking at the last six decades of music, TV, and film in the US, it's hard not to see the underlying insights of this film as prophetic.


Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The 'Undead' : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)


In a Morocco completely invaded by Europeans and Americans, in the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Moroccan leader Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the Magnificent (Sean Connery) kidnaps the American Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen), her son and her daughter. His intention is to get some money and rifles as ransom for them, to fight against the corrupt Sultan of Moroco (Marc Zuber). In times of election, the American President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) agrees with the proposal. However, Raisuli is betrayed and Eden helps him to be released from the prison with the American soldiers. I do not like films about explicit colonialism and lack of respect to the sovereignty of other countries, but `The Lion and the Wind' is indeed a great adventure. The action scenes are very realistic. Candice Bergen, the most beautiful American actress in the 70´s, is wonderful, performing an abducted woman like in the remarkable movie `Soldier Blue'. Sean Connery is perfect, as usual, as an honest and nationalist religious leader. Brian Keith is great as the American president. I do not know much about the Morocco history to analyze whether there is any truth in this story, but this movie is a worthwhile entertainment. In Brazil it is only available on VHS. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): `O Vento e o Leão' (`The Lion and the Wind')


I've seen this film on Sky Cinema not too long ago.. I must admit, it was a really good Western which features 2 of the big names.. On one side, there's Charlton Heston, playing the infamous and retired lawman Samuel Burgade. On the other.. The late James Coburn playing the villainous Zach Provo.. seeking revenge on Burgade no matter what the cost..!

The good thing about this film was there was some really good characters.. Most of the actors played it out really well.. Especially James Coburn, who I find that he was really mean in this film.. But that how it was..

Christopher Mitchum, who I've seen everywhere in other films.. Playing Hal Brickman.. I felt his character was left out in the cold, but he manage to get himself back in by teaming up with Burgade, to bring down Provo's posse's!

All in all, it was a great film.. Very good to watch.. Great score from the late Jerry Goldsmith..

Wonderful piece of Western persona..! 8 out of 10.


'Gunga Din': one of the greatest adventure stories ever told! A story about the British Foreign legion in 19th century India and a lowly 'water-bearer' named Gunga Din, a local denizen who aspires to be just like his military counterparts; three British sergeants whose loyalty and camaraderie for each other extend far beyond the bounds of mere patriotism. Their's is a true and abiding friendship for one another and each would be willing to sacrifice his own life for the good of the other. Gunga Din longs to be a soldier too, a Bugler in particular, but can never attain that rank due to his subordinate social standing. However, heroes are not made according to their social credentials, they're made through their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good of others. Gunga Din tries at every turn to prove his mettle, but will he ever attain the rank he so passionately seeks?....'You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din'! One of Hollywood's classics and a perfect 10!!!!


Mobile Suit Gundam Wing is the Fourth series in the continuing Gundam chronicles. Unlike the previous entries which focused on massive wars, this one is a little different; instead of having an army-vs.-army situation, this one is led by five teenage boys (due to their ability to blend in more readily than normal adults) and their machines called 'Gundams' because of the metal alloy used in their construction. Which leads to problems, since gundams are supposed to be destroyed, replaced by 'Mobile Suits', which are piloted less-destructive weapon platforms and 'Dolls' which are ran on A.I. and are used as grunt infantry.

The whole point of the series is a metaphysical question that gives Gundam Wing an edge over a greater portion of the Anime that makes it's way here. Especially since most anime is adapted from popular magazines, such as Naruto, DragonBall, One Piece, DragonBall Z and InuYasha which are all from Shonen Jump, which is now available in America.

Mobile Suit Gundam Wing sets itself apart from most anime in the fact that instead of over-the-top battles between mortals who more resemble gods, Gundam is very humanistic and seems to revel in the fact that it is dramatic instead of melodramatic and events seem to unfold across the series gracefully. Normally in anime there are more than few series that think that the best way to go about having a 'small' battle is to have it take a half-hour - something that would never happen in real life. Gundam tops this by making sure that everyone knows that characters will die, machines will be destroyed and rebuilt, battles will be lost and won, and it never seems as though it makes the actions themselves satirical.

But the magic of Gundam Wing is in the details, and what this series has that more anime would be grateful for having. Emotion. Instead of mythic prophecies, magic, or overblown martial arts, Gundam Wing is hard-line science fiction from a country that hates hard-line science fiction. (NOTE: The author would like to state that Neon Genesis Evangelion is not hard-line-plausible-in-real-life science fiction due to the religious subject matter that is the core of its series) they love Star Wars, but hate A.I. (the movie). Henceforth why Gundam Wing was and Gundam SeeD is now in production for both Japanese and U.S. releases at the same time with two voice teams. American audiences only have to wait two or three weeks after the end of the Japanese season to catch the dubbed or subtitled versions or even the edited SeeD episodes that air on Cartoon Network.

The emotion is that these two sides that are fighting a war are technically backwards. The heroes are those who defend the rights of the more wealthy and aristocratic citizens of Earth from the band of terrorists bent on victory at any and all costs that make up the protagonists of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. This is not war, this is 'total war'. Every person, every building, every street is a target for attack, both on Earth and off.

My only complaint, and the reason it didn't get the score of ten, is that at about three-fourths of the way through, it just kind of goes dead for a few episodes, and no one really seems to change. Kind of like a present-time flashback, which is fine due to what it reveals about the characters, but at the same time it drags down what should be the brewing between Project: Meteor and OZ. But the final two episodes and the overplayed-on-Cartoon-Network (back in 2001-2003) Mobile Suit Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz movie more than make up for the slack.


I saw this drama by cable TV. Although I saw just two series, I love this drama. I'm waiting for more series will be aired by cable.

Even though it describes horrible, absurd situation in a prisoner's camp, this one shows us an indomitable spirit, warmth, friendship and humanity. They don't know whether they can survive or not, but kept their hope strongly without being discouraged by adversity.

I know this movie is not realistic like other war documentary, but I don't want to blame for it. It makes me believe the strong will of people in the most difficult situation.

'Private Bill' , especially, this episode touched deep in my heart.

I remember every scene. I always hate mathematics. But after seeing this drama, I can understand something about mathematics... Mathematics is his connection between past and present, also symbolizes eternity.

'Time, light and memory framed in a circle.'

Like other victims of war, he lost his lover by irresistible fate. I'm immersed in his time and memory as if I experienced same thing.

He experienced the great loss but he has pure passion of study.

He started his study in the camp, his joy of realize,

I believe his dedication of study sustained him.

I saw it several times, but the meaning of this film never faded. Every time I saw it, I feel same deep emotion.

* Their songs are beautiful, harmonious,

I'm sorry that I can't listen OST.


Peter O'Toole gives a brilliant performance in this movie. I have seen the original version with Robert Donat and I much prefer Peter O'Toole's performance and the movie in general even though it is a musical. I've really never seen anything that Mr. O'Toole is in that I don't like. He is a brilliant actor, multi-talented, giving performances full of passion and depth. Petula Clark also gave a surprisingly good performance and was perfect for the part. It is an all-around heartwarming movie, full of tenderness and bittersweet fun. I will always remember (in para-phrase) the line where Mr. Chips regrets he has never given her children, and she replies, 'Of course you have, hundreds of them -- all boys.' Thank you for the opportunity to vote for this movie and to voice my opinion.


This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.


Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, 'The Money Pit'.

If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see.


It's interesting that all who (so far) seemed to like this film had no expectations--I guess that's the trick. In contrast with them, I had optimistic expectations, and that was a mistake. As soon as I saw how close to the faces the camera always was, I knew we were in the hands of an extremely amateur director--that's always a clear sign of them, they think it is arty or effective or intense to hold the camera about two inches away from the actors. The actors in this film, though, had only one facial expression each.

If the close camera wasn't enough, the lack of light in the film killed it. The film seemed to be entirely filmed in the dark. So now we know that the cinematographer was a rank amateur, as well. 'Ooh ooh, we're going to light the set with a flashlight! That will make it all seem intimate!' No, that made it all seem invisible.

On top of the serious technical flaws, there was absolutely no story beyond the barest hint of an idea that was never developed, and nothing new about this kind of relationship was illuminated. (Perhaps this is a new kind of film for Germany, but in Los Angeles, forget about it.)

The fact that this film won a couple of film festival awards doesn't indicate the quality of the film, but besmirches the quality of these particular festivals. I can assure you that this film won't win anything in the festival where I saw it. In fact, two times during the film it seemed that it was finally over and people started to get up to leave (this was one of the side effects of the cinematographer's 'total darkness' technique). But when the film shuddered on, instead, there were moans coming from the audience. And once the movie finally DID end, it was clear that it hadn't mattered if it actually had ended at either of the two earlier points. An earlier ending would have saved the audience from yet more monotonous scenes of domesticity (folding sheets, cutting vegetables, spreading honey on bread). Yeah, we get it, the life of the lonely old man was boring-- but we figured that one out at the very beginning.

I recommend that audiences miss this one, it has absolutely nothing to offer sophisticated movie-goers.


This is a true gem of corny sci-fi! Peter Cushing adds a great personality to this midnite movie classic.

I particularly like the sound design. The weird choppy voices of the creatures and the rhino creatures all provide a bizarre backdrop (Of course the scantily clad babe doesn't hurt either!)


I watched the Canadian videotape of this movie as 'The Witching' which somehow made its way to New York State. Audio was quite bad, I had to raise it to about 7/8 just to hear it and the soundtrack often was overwhelming the dialog. Orson Welles was a mumbler, worse than usual, and some of his dialog and of others was run through an echo chamber. A ghostly figure who keeps reappearing had her voice distorted. Some closed captions would really have helped!

A group of witches or satanists (the end credits say the group was not meant to represent any real group!) have a ritual in which they get naked and cause a miscarriage by stabbing a doll. The woman who had the miscarriage and her husband move to a town named 'Lilith,' where he's been offered a job at a toy factory. Despite one of the AKAs of this movie apparently being 'The Toy Factory,' we never see it, and it's only occasionally referred to at all.

On the way to Lilith, her husband gets impatient with some of her questions about what his new boss Mr. Cato wanted to know about their religious persuasion. He drives aggressively, and causes another car to go off the road and blow up. After the police arrive, she takes a doll that fell out of the car, the second of many handmade dolls in the movie.

It turns out Mr. Cato and all the townspeople are witches, and that they are the ones who caused her miscarriage, though she doesn't realize it. They want her because she has an innate talent for necromancy, of which she was not really aware.

Some images in the movie have some impact, but on the whole the movie is not very involving. The movie does seem a bit of a mess, and this is no doubt largely due to its re- editing and the addition of new footage. The original version, according to the end credits, was called Necromancy - A Life for a Life. The magic of DVD could let us see both versions on one disc, but re-releasing this movie probably isn't a priority.


Y'know, it's very interesting watching this... half the people involved with it are now dead...

Anyways, it's been a long time since I've watched anything Muppet related, but this stuff is pure gold. I'm a great fan of puns, and this movie has them quite well placed, but one of the amazing aspects of it is its pacing: it's not really high-speed children's pacing where the filmmakers just randomly decide to move the story along without giving the character's depth, it's just kind of moves along with the characters wherever they want to go.

Kermit the Frog is just an awesome character. His voice and the expressions on his puppet-face are fantastic. But above all, he points out why he's popular--'he can sing and make jokes too!'--but more appropriately why he's so endearing--he, without any effort, inspires everyone to search for their dreams. In the meantime, he also has to deal with himself, which is an uncommon theme in family movies.

It also contains quite an ensemble of comedians making appearances here and there, some to great effect, others to a little less (I think Mel Brook's part was just a bit overplayed, do you?). Some parts of the film are just kind of odd. But it's highly imaginative and takes itself to the same destination from a very different direction.

Moving right along...

--PolarisDiB


Tierney's an authentic tough guy, but this movie misfire from normally competent RKO undercuts his impact at every turn. The script is about as plausible as OJ Simpson at a Ten Cmmandments dinner. Just count the times Tierney's incredible car companions swallow one lame excuse after another for his evasive and violent acts. The old cliché about it 'only happening in the movies' applies here in spades. Then there's the guy playing the watchman, who appears to have wandered in from a boozy WC Fields comedy, ruining the menacing mood in the process. The static one-room sets don't help either, and neither does director Feist's obvious lack of feel for the material. Then add a final car chase missing both imagination and pay-off, and the results are pretty flat. In fact the movie only picks up in the station-house scenes where hard-bitten cops discover the hidden powers of innocent-looking gas station attendants. Too bad that Tieney's career never really gelled. I gather that was due largely to being as big a tough guy off-screen as on and getting in one sleazy scrape after another. His ice-cold manner and clarity of emotion remind me at times of Lee Marvin at his tough-guy best. Anyway this project might have worked as a radio play, but as a movie with a promising noir title, it's a disappointment.


Wow. This is really not that good.

I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.

The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.

*/****


Treading Water is a very beautiful movie. I would put it straight under the wonderful short movie : Cosa bella from Fiona MacKenzie. It's not only about coming out but also about tolerance and acceptance in general. I am looking forward to seeing more of Laurel Himmel's work in the future. The actors, Angie Redman and Nina Landey are quite good. The main characters relationship could have been strenghtened a bit as we understand there is a very strong bond between them but maybe this could have been explained a bit. I am surprised that Angie Redman doesn't appear much in other movies. A great first step as a director for Laurel Himmel, I am sure there's more to see from her skills.


Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', 'Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!' And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.

The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.

Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.

0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time!


Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, 'nothing'? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The 'nothing' in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.


This review contains MILD SPOILERS, but not enough to spoil the story...

Watched Nihon Chinbotsu (Sinking of Japan or Japan Sinks, depending on where you live) recently, a remake of the 1970's movie of the same name, which itself was based on Sakyo Komatsu's best-selling novel. This movie is a gem of Japanese film-making. It appears that Japan is sinking due to a subduction of a tectonic plate to the west. The Americans predict that it would happen in the period of 40 years, but according to Dr.Tadokoro (a seemingly 'mad' scientist), it will happen in less than a year. The Japanese government isn't that convinced but sets up a Disaster evacuation plan as well as form a new D1 team to handle the crisis. While on a trip to China to negotiate evacuation plans, the Japanese Prime Minister was killed, and sends the cabinet into a state of panic. The D1 team is left to handle most matters, and led by the newly elected Minister of Crisis Management, Saoro Takamori (Dr.Tadokoro's ex-wife). She turns instead to Dr.Tadokoro for advice, and he has plans to blow astronomically HUGE holes under Japan to avert the process of sinking.

Japan would soon have to negotiate with various countries and persuade them to adopt Japanese refugees. Soon, it seems that a lot of countries are reluctant to accept any more due to the sudden influx of Japanese in their country and the chaos that follows (if this ever happens, touch-wood, I hope Ito Misaki will be safe... she can always stay at my place... hee hee). The scenes of evacuations are really well done, showing the havoc, suffering and desperation civilians have to face in such disastrous times. And the many faces of human beings surface, arrogance, selfishness, bribery, bravery, cowardry...

This is a really well-made film. the storytelling is solid, with an engaging storyline and wonderful acting. Dr.Tadokoro (played by Toyokawa Etsushi) was done really well, portraying a divorced and often mad scientist who kicks and bashes up stuff. His frustration and concerns were very visible and that's a really good thing. Reiko (played by gorgeous Shibasaki Kou) was also played rather well, and has the most memorable line in the entire movie (go watch it to find out) and I fancy that she has a nice acting voice. She plays the love interest of Toshio Onodera (played by Tsuyoshi Kusanagi of SMAP). Oh, I almost forgot... she has really, really long hair~ And there's also a subtle but background love story, which is well written and if there's something the Japanese do really well, it's love stories...

One thing that makes this movie interesting is the technical explanations of the events that occur, and if you're interested in geography, you'll have a really good time (I know I did... hehe). I can see that they went to great lengths to make this movie's theory believable, and the first few graphical displays and explanation were done rather well (although you'll have to excuse the Japanese's famous 'Engrish'.

OK, now about the effects (it's all about the effects, isn't it?). After watching the movie with pure awe, I must say that this movie has special effects that are on par (or even better) with some Hollywood productions. The volcanic eruptions... the massive earthquakes... destruction... tsunamis... explosions... all done splendidly. The opening scene is so cool, the 1st earthquake catches you by surprise, mountains fall, the destruction due to volcanic eruptions makes you cringe... to actually watch Mount Fuji heat up is a marvel... then you see Shibuya fall to the ground... it's so sad!!! However, what I felt was one of the best scenes was the giant tsunami scene, which sees rescue operations fail and people left with nowhere to run and no hope to hold on to... the ending scene also deserves a mention... wonderful stuff. If you like effects, you'll love this movie.

Oh ya... every good movie has a great song behind it. The seriously addictive 'Keep Holding U' sung by the super-cute and adorable SunMin is a duet with Kubota, and it's simply lovely. I feel it suits the movie really well and it shows that no matter what disasters hit us, our love and strength would keep us holding on. The disaster scenes are handled with orchestra music and at times silence (a Japanese specialty) and really gives a sense of chaos to the destruction on screen. Oh, and did I mention it's a really, really, really WIDE screen? Okla, been going on and on about this movie. Yeah, I LOVED it, and hoping to watch again... It does have plot holes, but it's all excusable because it was just a wonderful popcorn movie. Not perfect, but really well-made. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. I'm glad to say that the most expensive movie in Japanese history is also one of their best. If you haven't watched it, you really should today... it is a MUST WATCH!


Following a roughly 7 year rocky road on NBC, it was decided to do just one last Super Installment. The Series had been on the bubble several times thanks to not having the numbers that would qualify it as a block-buster of a TV hour. It had always had a sizable, hard core of hard corps of followers.

It was almost as if the series with the full title of 'HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET' (1993-99) was a sort of 'Mr. In-Between' of series. It was too big to just cancel, but too small to get a case of 'Rabid Ratings Ravings' over.

During the precarious tenure on Friday evenings, they had presented some of the best and most daringly Artistic of Hourly Dramas. There, I've said it Artistic, Artistic!! But please, remember we mean Artistic, but not just Phony, Pretentious, Pedantic, Politically Correct preaching.

When at last, it was a sure thing that it was the end of the line for 'HOMICIDE'; this super episode was prepared as this 2 hour made for TV Movie.

Looking at all the past seasons' happenings and parade of regular characters, the Production team went out and gave us what proved to be a super send off.

OUR STORY. As we join the story, we find that Baltimore Homicide Unit Commanding Officer, Lt. Al Giardello has 'pulled the pin', Retired from the job, that is. But 'G' isn't ready to really retire-retire yet. So, instead of a rocking chair o a fishing rod, we find that Al is running for Mayor of 'Charm City.'

While out in the City, making some campaign stops and speeches, the former Detective Lieutenant takes an assassin's bullet. Alive, but in a comatose state, he is taken to the Hospital.

News spreads quickly and as if officially summoned, we find all of the Detectives of the Baltimore Unit we've seen on the show showing up to offer their services and assistance. There is a great meeting of all of these former and present gumshoes as they pitch in and follow every lead and possibility of a lead.

The Producer found a way to deal with those who had died previously in bringing their memory into the story. They managed to answer some long standing questions and even introduced some here to unrevealed ones. The whole story winds up the series in a most satisfying and original way. But at least for now, we'll leave that as 'classified'.

In wrapping up everything into a neat, little package, this TV Movie surely gets our endorsement. As for grading 'THE HOMICIDE MOVIE', we must give it an A or A+, even. But, no matter the Grade here, it didn't score as high as a typical weekly episode.


The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...

Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.

Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.

Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.

The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done.


Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is 'The General', unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.

Like 'Goodfellas' (1990) and 'American Gangster' (2007)two superior mob movies'The General' is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.

Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous 'Goodfellas' (1990) and the first two 'Godfather' films, I was expecting too much from 'The General.' But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. 'Schindler's List' (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. 'The General', made just five years after 'Schindler's List' is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like 'Schindler's List' did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.

But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not onenot onecharacter in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was 'okayso what?' Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say 'so what?' And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film.


Some movies are just  unlucky. These are the films that obviously thrived on a lot of goodwill and a handful of potentially great ideas, but simply didn't have the budgetary means and/or professional cast and crew members at their disposal to make it happen. 'The Strangeness' definitely belongs in this category. You really want to like it, but even the most tolerant and undemanding 80's horror fanatics will have to admit the film barely reaches the level of mediocrity due to its atmosphere of cheapness, clumsy stop-motion effects and impenetrably dark cinematography. 'The Strangeness' has a fairly original plot and setting (okay, it's similar to 'The Boogens' but I sincerely doubt that director David Michael Hillman intentionally ripped off a fellow insignificant 80's B-movie) and the players deliver enthusiast performances even though they're all miscast. An assembly of amateur speleologists go on an expedition to explore the infamous Gold Spike mine. Many years ago, several miners mysteriously died there and the place has abandoned ever since, but there's supposed to be too much gold hidden there to remain closed forever. Shortly after they descended into the mine, the group members one by one encounter the slimy ruler of the Gold Spike mine; a Lovecraftian monster with tentacles and an incredibly cheesy way of moving forward. Throughout most of its running time, 'The Strangeness' is a boring and incompetent mess that is difficult to follow due to the complete lack of lighting. The characters are uninteresting and the mine remains a mystery because the only lighting effects come from the helmets of the speleologists. There's very little action or horror to experience in the first hour, but director Hillman cleverly grasps the viewers' attention by showing bits and pieces of the monster at regular intervals. As soon as you catch the first glimpse of the monster's tentacle, you're doomed to keep watching till the very end. The creature is realized with stop-motion effects, which I usually adore and worship, but here in this case they look extremely weak and pitiable. The person responsible for the special effects should have paid more attention to the work of Ray Harryhousen. The death sequences largely occur off-screen and there's very little suspense throughout the whole movie. A horror flick with a setting like this should benefice from claustrophobic atmosphere and unidentifiable sound effects, but 'The Strangeness' lacks all this. The biggest trump of the film is unquestionably the beautiful appearance of blond actress Terri Berland. She resembles a speleologist as much as I resemble Mother Theresa, but she surely looks good in her tight white top and beige pants.


This is one of the funniest series ever! I laughed till my sides split and rolled around on the floor. If only someone would release in America. Region 0 or 1 - Non-PAL please.

I know it being released in the UK but that's Region 2 and PAL besides! Let's give this series its fair shake. America must know this series. Moffat is a genius. I loved Tracie Bennett's quirky, goofy role in this. Of course I liked Fiona Gillies! But Tracie was a treasure!

Release this show in America! or Show it again on the PBS stations. I need to laugh and laugh again! Please indulge us, please! Please!

Thanks for reading.


I saw this last night in Fort Lauderdale. In general it was funny and I liked the characters especially Sabrina. The acting is good and the story line was OK except for the ending which left way to many strings dangling and we were like (what?) I wanted to know what happened to the characters and it was a strange ending that could have been done so much better.

The film did portray rule life really well and we laughed throughout. It has flaws that is for sure but for a first time film for Ash Christian I thought it was good. You might want to wait for the DVD on this one. But if you get a chance to see it give it a shot


If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.

STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.

Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.

A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.

An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.

Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.

The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.

PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout?


Jim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3


Ben, (Rupert Grint), is a deeply unhappy adolescent, the son of his unhappily married parents. His father, (Nicholas Farrell), is a vicar and his mother, (Laura Linney), is ... well, let's just say she's a somewhat hypocritical soldier in Jesus' army. It's only when he takes a summer job as an assistant to a foul-mouthed, eccentric, once-famous and now-forgotten actress Evie Walton, (Julie Walters), that he finally finds himself in true 'Harold and Maude' fashion. Of course, Evie is deeply unhappy herself and it's only when these two sad sacks find each other that they can put their mutual misery aside and hit the road to happiness.

Of course it's corny and sentimental and very predictable but it has a hard side to it, too and Walters, who could sleep-walk her way through this sort of thing if she wanted, is excellent. It's when she puts the craziness to one side and finds the pathos in the character, (like hitting the bottle and throwing up in the sink), that she's at her best. The problem is she's the only interesting character in the film (and it's not because of the script which doesn't do anybody any favours). Grint, on the other hand, isn't just unhappy; he's a bit of a bore as well while Linney's starched bitch is completely one-dimensional. (Still, she's got the English accent off pat). The best that can be said for it is that it's mildly enjoyable - with the emphasis on the mildly.


Watchable little semi-soaper, but hardly captivating. Still, two or three funny moments. What amazes me is how slippery and morally highly questionable McNicol is. She plays an invalid (a leg problem), yet she not only isn't the 'ugly duckling' whom men shun, but she is even a man-eater - and we are supposed to feel for her! Oh, poor little McNicol, with her leg problem... Poor little McNicol??! She is constantly getting passes from men, and even dumps them without so much as blinking! At one occasion she even has a premeditated one-night affair with a blond stud, and then she tells her newly-found French girlfriend quite non-chalantly that it took him time to get an erection! Makes us viewers wonder why she is so leg-conscious if every guy wants to hump her. Well, almost every guy; the only guy who really shunned her after seeing her leg wrapped up in metal is the guy working on the telephone. But otherwise she seems to be doing just fine with men! No shyness, no lack of success with men, and she throws them away like toys; the way she dumped Carradine was ridiculous. Poor little invalid girl?? I don't think so. And yet we are meant to believe that this woman has a major confidence problem; hence the scene in which she prepares to start playing the flute for a solo concert and somehow manages to throw the notes on the ground out of nervousness. Nervousness?? The rest of the movie shows little or nothing that would suggest that she has confidence problems, so this flute scene is absurd and doesn't fit into the bigger picture. I was also surprised how quickly and eagerly McNicol makes friends with a French woman who is screwing a married guy. On the surface the movie would appear to be a 'sentimental story of one crippled woman's struggle for acceptance' (or something like that) but it's nothing like that at all; the writer clearly shifts between this type of movie and a 'screw anything that moves - it's the 80s' kind of movie - very confusing.

As far as her leg: it's not like she has a big, fat purple balloon growing on her calf muscle. She 'only' has a normal-looking metal prosthetic attached to the lower part of her leg, so I really don't understand why the makers of the film try to make it seem as if she is a female Quasimodo or something, at the beginning of the film. It's not like she has a twin head growing out of her neck! Though McNicol is hardly a major catch. Kind of cutish but nothing special, quite average.

But what the hell is Carradine doing playing some kind of a (relatively) smooth guy flirting with McNicol and her pal?! This guy was in 'Revenge of the Nerds'! But I guess it's the same thing with the Carradines in the movies as it is with the Kennedys in politics: no matter how ugly, unable, or dumb, all the doors are open for a career in movies and politics, respectively.

Down with nepotism.

If you want to read bogus biographies about the Carradines, and other Hollywood nepotists and morons, contact me by e-mail.


Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.

In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.

Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.

Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded  14 years after shooting shut down.

Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues  long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.

It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.


I rarely write reviews for IMDb.com, but I feel compelled to warn potential viewers that this movie is terrible. Just terrible. I like Shaw Bros. movies (I'm not a hater.), and I had high expectations for this one since I found it listed on many '10 Best Kung Fu/Martial Arts Movies' websites. (I'm now convinced that those 10 Best lists are all cut-and-paste jobs.) First of all, there's barely any action in the film. Most of the movie consists of talking about the plot, which is an amazing feat because it's thin at best. And the action itself may have been impressive back in 1978, but it's routine by today's standards. A special warning to Netflix users: the DVD they ship is terrible; the picture is horrendous and it's not even 16:9 enhanced.


Vampires Vs. Zombies starts with the breaking news that the unidentified disease that is spreading across America leaves the sufferer with homicidal & cannibalistic tendencies... Travis Fontaine (C.S. Munro) & his teenage daughter Jenna (Bonny Giroux) listen to the radio as they drive along the isolated backwoods roads to try & escape the disease when Travis runs over a guy who I assume is meant to be a zombie. Slightly further down the road he stops to help Julia (Brinke Stevens) & her teenage daughter Carmilla (Maratama Carlson) who are waving at the side of the road, at this point there is also a third teenage girl named Tessa (Melanie Crystal) sitting in the back of Julia's car bound & gagged. To me this situation would seem strange but Travis, like the trooper he is, takes it all in his stride & agrees to 'take' Carmilla off Julia's hands &, well I don't know actually. So, with a complete stranger, Travis drives off leaving Julia & Tessa. Carmilla seems like a nice girl but she turns out to be a Vampire & she likes to bite people & turn them into Vampires, oh & she's partial to a bit of lesbianism too. Travis, Carmilla & Jenna continue to travel while some guy who calls himself The General (Peter Ruginis) who appears to be some sort of Vampire killer & probably has something to do with it all but the film is such a mess it doesn't really matter & I really don't know how to carry on this plot outline as my head hurts just thinking about it...

Co-edited, co-executive produced, written & directed by the supremely untalented Vince D'Amato Vampires Vs. Zombies is one of the worst horror films ever & therefore one of the worst films ever period. The script by D'Amato was apparently based on a classic story entitled 'Carmilla' by Sheridan Le Fanu (he should sue) & is an absolute mess, the holes in the plot & logic are so big you could drive a tank through them! What is the disease that turns people into zombies? Why is Carmilla a Vampire? Who is Julia to her? Who the hell is The General? What does he want? Where are Travis & Jenna going? How can Travis run a man over & yet not have the slightest bit of human emotion over it? What's with the mental ward at the end? There are also some confusing & unnecessary dream sequences just to annoy the viewer even more. There are just so many things wrong with this film, the narrative doesn't make a blind bit of sense, the concept is terrible & never really explained properly plus it's incredibly boring. I have not one positive thing to say about Vampire Vs. Zombies, not one. Forget about any Vampires fighting Zombies because it just doesn't happen, tell me again why is this film called Vampires Vs. Zombies?

Director D'Amato has served up one of the most incompetent, rubbishy, badly made, poorly thought out & excruciatingly painful viewing experiences ever made. Vampires Vs. Zombies really has no redeeming qualities at all, there is not one single aspect that I can praise. The gore is really fake looking, there are some blood splats which look like red water, some really cheap staking effects & a half decent climax where the zombies feast on Carmilla's & Jenna's intestines, this fairly gory scene is probably the best part of the whole wretched film but it only lasts for a couple of minutes & in no way makes up for the other turgid 85.

The budget on Vampires Vs. Zombies must have been small, in fact did it even have a budget because most of it is set on a road in a couple of cars. This is one of the most badly made horror films it's been my misfortune to watch, the entire thing just sucks. The acting is predictably awful, & I mean awful.

There isn't much else left to say, Vampires Vs. Zombies is easily one of the worst films ever made. The (V) next to the title on the IMDb's main page for Vampires Vs. Zoimbies indicates that it went straight to video, well that's far too good for this pile of crap as it deserves to go straight on the nearest fire.


I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.

The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. 'Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you' I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.

The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. 'This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly', says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...

See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.

3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.


As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical 'good time' feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.


This film is bone chilling in a way that is hard to describe. While it is fairly accurate in its description of the events leading up to and the subsequent investigation regarding the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, seen now post 9/11, it is almost unbearable.

It would be a mistake to call this film prophetic, but it certainly makes the common playground wisdom of 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me' come alive.

Our government learned nothing from the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center and subsequent readings of the 9/11 Report show that many of the mistakes that led to the bombing in 1993 were repeated.

Some people have criticized the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution as being partly responsible for the Islamic terrorists being able to carry out their evil plans, but that is wrong headed in every possible way.

Surely the people making this argument are not supporting a ban on Free Speech, a free press or freedom of religion? I certainly hope they are not supporting our government officials being able to break into any person's home or office to search without cause or without a warrant.

The fact is, the FBI, the INS and even the local police could have gotten warrants based on the information they had in their possession, but they chose not to for a variety of reasons. Besides, no matter how distasteful or ignorant it is, it is not illegal to speak badly about America or its leaders. Likewise, it is not illegal to either own guns or to pray toward Mecca.

Consider this, until Lee Harvey Oswald actually fired his rifle at President John Kennedy, he wasn't really breaking any laws. Living in a free society has its drawbacks.

Still, Path To Paradise is a must see film that I am afraid will never be seen by that many people. As far as I know, it is not on DVD and 2007 is its tenth anniversary and there are no known revivals of it.

I'm not really surprised, people don't like to document their failures and this film certainly shows that the various agencies that were supposed to protect us did not do their jobs right and for the pettiest of reasons, like jurisdictional squabbles and a refusal to share information.

This is a shame as Path To Paradise is well done and gripping and as many have stated before, the final scene where Ramzi Yousef (played by Art Malik), the bomber who built the truck bomb that was used in the first attempt at destroying the two towers is flying past the World Trade Center after his capture and extradition simply says 'Next time we will bring them both down', is a film moment that froze me in place for several minutes.


This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare like 'Night of the Living Dead' or 'Hills Have Eyes.' But for true horror fans, this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with the 1999 remake of 'House on the Haunted Hill.' The set-up and character dynamics are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually remaking?


when i sat down to watch this movie i thought that it might be slightly good. but no. it was a OK film, not good, but not bad for most of it but then you get to the ending and it losses all credibility. they should have just left then dead. they did not leave the last bit it did not make any sense. if they had something at they beginning about a plane crash yeah but we didn't so it didn't work. the first bit is OK and i give them credit for that but the rest is just plane bad and unnecessary if you are thinking about going and watching this movie DON'T it is awful go and rent something that is actually worth watching. i give it 2/10