I am not kidding: there's a scene in this movie where a hobo hits his head on a tunnel keystone and explodes (with no fireball, though) into a million pieces! It made some kid in front of me scream in terror! ...In a G-rated film!

This film might serve to convince children that Santa Clause is EVIL! His helpers are ugly, misanthropic, over-the-top and mean! When Santa (here an anagram of Satan!) appears, all 200,000 elves begin singing 'Santa Clause is Coming to Town' as though it were a Druid war chant. Then, in the reflection of this movie's 'Rosebud' object (a jingle bell that whispers hints of why you can't hear it ringing: 'doubt....doubt...)), old Saint Nick appears, looking like a stoic Donald Sutherland, his face glowing like Moses' from 'K10C'. When we hear him speak, his thundering voice sounds less like a jolly old elf, and more like James Earl Jones' voice slowed-down about 20%. Frightening!

The syrupy music is out-of-place, boring and repetitive. It doesn't follow any emotional threads (as in 'Titanic's' very effective score). It just seems thrown in at certain points in order to generate feelings of warmth and magic. It fails to stir, partly because it doesn't match the imagery of the film. There are some musical train wrecks (no pun intended) where, out of nowhere, the eerie, symphonic score slams abruptly into happy, child-voiced POLKA about the title locomotive. It just makes the whole movie sound like it was rushed into production!

Finally, I agree with some other reviewers about how, well... 'dead' everyone looks. It does seem a little macabre at times. The motion-capture technique is good for allowing the Kings Island-like roller-coaster train sequences to look convincing from a distance, but up close, 'real' actors should have been used. Overall, nice eye-candy for killing time in front of the TV, but not much else here.


What network was , Diagnosis Murder on? I thought it was CBS. Am I right or?? Also, Back in those days, the actual production H.Q. was near about the Van Nuys Airport. I surely remember, because I practically made nearly two episodes in those daze. More. I remember the early days. I had found an article in Reader's Digest giving this actor/writer a clue to a terrific episode. So just for suggesting it I was awarded. Awarded or not, I sadly didn't develop it, and was cut out of it all due to poor publicity of mine. So as a justification I learned as I always have, the hard way... Roll the dice..Craps!!! Just a side bar on Mr. Van Dyke. He had a house in the Brentwood area on Chalon Road and it was an incredible party house. Dick had a terrific sense of modernism when he built that house.


What an absolutely charming movie. The cast is wonderful, and the story is witty and fun. An all around pleasant movie experience. Although the plot is somewhat predictable, it doesn't make the story any less enjoyable, in fact I didn't want it to end. I've always been a Ingrid Bergman fan, and I was interested to see her in a comedic role. She didn't let me down, Ingrid Bergman's performance as Ms Dickinson is fun to watch. I loved her interaction with Toni at the music store as well as her Dancing and doing 'the Dentist'. It only further proved what I already knew, that she is one of the greatest actresses of all time. Goldie Hawn is also delightful to watch. Her fun, gentle-hearted and lovable Toni is the driving force of the movie. You don't even question why she would be so concerned about her Finacee's wife, you just accept that she's just that type of person who wouldn't be happy unless she knew everyone else was also. And Walter Matthau is great as Julian. His actions never create a feeling animosity for the viewer, in fact they almost make him more enduring. There wasn't an unlikable character in the bunch. This movie has definitely with stood the test of time, I watched it just last night and I think it's one of the best romantic comedies I've ever seen. If you're looking for a fun, lighthearted, romantic comedy look no further.


The primary aspect of this film which most people miss is that Luhzin lives his life as a chess game. So many people have seen this film and just don't get it, and I don't understand why. While watching this film I was taken on a private journey which floored me. I will try to explain this without any spoilers, but be forewarned, I do talk about things that happen in the movie.

**** Possible Spoilers **** Be Forewarned!****

His is a life of 'large moves' versus 'small moves'. He chooses Natalia to be his Queen, and he and she behave as his Aunt first described the King and Queen and their moves when she introduced him to chess as a boy. Listen closely to that description.

When someone asks him a question, he flashbacks to the past as if reviewing past moves. (The flashbacks are beautifully lit, by the way.) The flashbacks are quite interesting as well, for they give not only his point of view as a child, but the point of view of the other character as well. It's stunning.

Various characters become either his helpers or his enemies, pawns, bishops and knights, their actions enlightening you as to who's side they are on. Even their placement in a scene is pivotal to understanding what is going on. Beautifully done.

I will not comment more on what happens to the character of Luhzin, but I hope that this will illuminate what is actually happening at the end.

This film is constantly working on many levels, which is why I endorse it. It was a treat and a joy to watch.

If you like this film I would recommend a film called Fresh. The only way that these films are similar is the use of chess and the characters being treated as pieces.


I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.

What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.

What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.


Mel Torme and Victor Borge, in their younger years, serve to make this film interesting - and especially viewing a young Sinatra, on the sunny side of 30, and definitely conveying that this was his 'yes, I'm a popular singer, but hardly an actor yet' stage. Michele Morgan is an annoying, inane presence, and Jack Haley is an actor whose appeal has always been totally lost on me. Leon Erroll is silly, as always, but overall pretty funny. 7 stars of a potential 10 is about the right 'grade,' because with the combination of its positive aspects, along with the lack of much of a story, and a silly one at that, and the fore-mentioned annoyances - it is overall average at best. Most of the fascination is from the viewing of the three entertainment icons in their early years.


do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.

with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?


**SPOILERS** Redicules slasher film that makes no sense at all with a killer running around dressed in a black robe and wearing what looks like a pull-over Peter Lorre rubber mask. Were told early in the movie, almost the very first scene, that young Beth Morgan was in rehab due to heavy drug use after her boyfriend was murdered in Tennyson Collage about a year ago.

It's also brought out that FBI Agent Sacker's (Jeff Conaway), who's obsessed in catching the killer,daughter was also murdered in Tennyson around the same time. By the time the movie 'Do You Wanna Know A Secret' is over it's never explained just what those two killings back in Connecticute has to do with the slaughter in Florida of some half dozen collage students a year later? other that the killer, at least in the murder of Beth's boyfriend, wore the same silly Halloween outfit.

At spring break in the Sunshine State the six students spend their vacation at a beach house and before you know it they start getting knocked off one at a time. Starting with computer geek Brad Clyton, Chad Allen, the killing even spill over into town with a number of people who have nothing to do with the targeted student including the police chief Gavin, Jack McGee, getting sliced open.

The masked killer saves Beth for last in this weird ceremony at a deserted church, in what looks like the Florida Everglades. He then finally reveals who his is and what he intentions are which make as much sense as the movie does, none. Trying to scare it's audience all the movie does is confuse and bewilder it with a number of not-too convincing slasher scenes. The most effective ones having the victim Oz Washington, Tom Jay Jones, survive at least three attempts on his life and ending up, together with Agent Sacker, the hero in the film.

Oz also had a vicious cut on is foot from a large splinter of glass that almost cut it in half and crippled him but later he miraculously recovered, after getting arrested for a murder he didn't commit, in fact he had it out two more time with the killer with him not as much as having a slight limp in his walk! It also made no sense at all why Oz and Beth went on their own to tack down and catch the killer instead of calling the police, with a cellphone that Oz had, instead?

Beth's boyfriend, who loses his head over her, in the movie Hank Ford, Joseph Lawrence, is also very unconvincing as well as the two girls at the beach house.They together with with Beth Oz end up being the killers victims and then somehow disappearing from sight! for a moment you didn't know if they were really killed at all or if it was some kind of hallucination on Oz's or the local police part. Until the off-the-wall final scene where they popped up in the church.

We also get an insight on a previous relationship between Tina and Hank with her, drunk and acting obnoxious, trying to get it on with Hank as Beth walks in without Hank and Tina even noticing her. That seemed to have upset Beth even more then her boyfriend being murdered at the beginning of the movie!


Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing. Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop.


There's no use trying to describe in detail the convoluted, overly melodramatic plot involving Civil War bitterness, a crooked town boss, and other complications. It's all bad.

Stella Stevens, Andrew Prine, Bo Svenson, William Smith, Tim Thomerson and Lee Majors are all good actors that may not be big stars (or big stars anymore) but always made fun movies.

Here, they're all wasted on a picture that looks like it was shot in a wild west tourist trap, with costumes borrowed from the local high school theater department. In fact, most of the acting appears to be on the high school level too, which might not be so bad if it weren't so pretentious.

The name of Ed Wood is invoked way too lightly these days. I think in this case the comparison is warranted. However, I suspect that old Ed would have made a more entertaining western than this.


Even though this film is 11 years old, I just rented it yesterday, and I found it to be a really touching film. The story of true friendship in the face of a very real monster is an inspiration and quite touching.

While I did not care much for the amount of language used by some of the young actors--especially from Renfro--I understand that art is imitating life. Renfro once again does a magnificent job of the rough-and-tough, very (and I mean VERY) disturbed wannabe bully (his role in The Client comes to mind), and Mazzello does a wonderful job of the witty, somewhat quirky, Dexter--a child who realizes that his life must end too soon.

While there are so many touching and funny moments in the movie, I have to say that my favorite was when the boys were cornered by Pony in the abandoned church, and Dexter (Mazzello) cut himself, saying his blood was poison. While very resourceful, and somewhat amusing seeing a grown man running away from two little kids, it's one of the hardest scenes in the film.

Definitely check this one out, but prepared with your Kleenex--you'll need it!


Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch 'Troll 3' by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.


The great James Cagney, top-billed in big letters, doesn't show up till the movie's second third, and probably has less screen time than Dudley Digges, who plays the eee-vill reform-school potentate. But when Jimmy arrives, as a deputy commissioner of something-or-other out to reform reform schools, he slashes the air with his hands and jumps on the balls of his feet and spits out punchy Warners-First National dialogue with all the customary, and expected, panache. The psychology in this crisp antique, one of Warners' many efforts to assert its place as the 'socially conscious' studio, doesn't run deep: Digges is bad just because the script requires him to be, and there's the quaint notion that juvenile delinquents will turn into swell kids if they're just given a dash of autonomy. But it's made in that spare, fast style that the studio specialized in, and it never bores. Frankie Darro, who got into all kinds of onscreen trouble during a brief tenure as Warners' favorite Rotten Street Kid, is an ideal JD -- a handsome, charismatic toughie with a pug nose and a hate-filled stare that could wither steel. No kid actor today can touch him.


There are two movie experiences I will always cherish. The first was seeing 'Star Wars' for the first time at the age of 10 with my little brother. A close second is sneaking into Halloween at the Tripple Plex with my good friend, Trevor, in late October 1978. Halloween left me breathless, speechless, and downright scared. Everyone knows the story. Young Michael Myers decides to kill his sister on Halloween 1963. He escapes a mental hospital 15 years later to return to Haddofield to wreck havoc once again. He spots Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a shy senior who enjoys babysitting, and begins stalking her. Her partying friends across the street are killed, one-by-one as Michael sets his plot to get her. Ironically, the young boy she tends on Halloween is afraid of the 'Boogeman,' and can see him outside. During the murder spree, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) works hard to find Michael before he unleashes his fury. He has no proof, no evidence, just a hunch he has to sell to Sheriff Bracket (Charles Cyphers). As the plot unfolds, you have a suspense-driven movie instead of a cheap thrill scare. Alfred Hitchcock once said, 'You can have four men at a table playing cards and they don't know there is a bomb and it goes off. That is a cheap thrill. However, put four men at a table who discover a bomb and discuss what to do about it--then it doesn't go off, then you have suspense.' Director John Carpenter takes that advice to the hilt in Halloween. The audience will see glimpses of him outside, watching, stalking his victims. We gasp. Will he kill her? When will he kill her? Then, Michael disappears. Carpenter also uses the suspense in lieu of special effects that usually highlight the gore. This movie has little blood, but still provides good scares. One of the best scenes is Michael lifting Bob off the ground. He rears the knife back as it glints off the moonlight, then he drives it. All you hear is a loud thud, then the audience sees Bob's feet drop lifelessly. Carpenter was the first to use a vantage point from the scene of the killer. This also peaks our audience. What will he do? What's going on inside his mind? Finally, Carpenter's hauntingly masterful score adds to the tension. Moreover, the tandem screen writing he did with Debra Hill gives us a story which develops characters we care about. The teens are not 'party mad,' but merely going through the rebellious angst of teenage wasteland. Finally, there is some decent acting in this 'B,' low-budget thriller. Nick Castle who plays 'the Shape' (Michael) adds something to the mindless killer. It is cold, merciless, and without any pathology. Moreover, the personality does everything the same way. He kills only when trapped, or to set up a trap. He splits the victims apart. He also relies on brute strength. And that mask used (a bleached William Shatner mask) gives an impression of something that has no soul or emotion. While Pleasance is melodramatic in his deadpan monologues, he comes across as someone scared, desperate, and determined. It made me wonder if he represented modernism's fading attempt to explain evil. The crown jewel, though, is Jamie Lee Curtis' debut. She plays the Laurie character as someone scared, but also determined and strong who fights back. The end is one that left me speechless. This was the first concept of an indestructible serial killer who could not be stopped. Movies like Star Wars have the advantage that it can be enjoyed numerous times. Halloween, and other scary movies, though, do not have that advantage. So if we could erase our minds of the first time we see a movie to experience it again as fresh and new, Halloween would be the movie I would choose.


Almost in the same league as Yonfan's rather atrocious Color Blossoms, Spider Lillies drives the point home that you can make cutting edge cinema without the edge, or much in the way of cutting. It's a Taiwanese film, which in this day and age is becoming a novelty at an alarming pace, but more than that tidbit, we can find very little in the way of the noteworthy here.

You should know that ostensibly Spider Lillies is also a lesbian-themed story, but in every aspect this is nothing but a plastic ploy to lure in the easily seduced and gullible. In several ways we have here a repeat of fellow recent Taiwan release Eternal Summer. Then it was gay men getting the shortchange treatment, now we have the same thing with women. Zero Chou presents, for your non-existent edification, a tale likely to titillate at most a fifteen year old. They managed some of the art house stance, but in the end this results in a most inane, simply uninteresting foray.

The Hong Kong angle comes in the form of Isabella Leung (Bug Me Not, Isabella, Diary), here sporting her most butch look yet. Although somewhat likable in her previous jobs, Isabella in Spider Lillies is listless and lacking in most departments. Either her heart wasn't into it or the whole lesbian drama pitch didn't quite appeal to her sensibilities.

She does a Taipei tattoo artist who's shy, reclusive and in charge of a mentally challenged younger brother, played by John Shen, who thankfully grants the movie its only thespian-related redeeming feature. Isabella's character, oddly named Takeko but supposedly hailing from Hong Kong, soon hooks up with disaffected youth Jade (Rainie Yang from fondly-recalled Meteor Garden). The latter lives with her grandmother and has a whole list of grievances due to being left behind by her parents and life in general. Sure, the grandmother component works well and is touching, but otherwise Jade as a protagonist is just as unmoving as her counterpart Takeko.

The two women share a past and lots of inadequately covered angst, with Jade working as a webcam girl while Takeko keeps her father's legacy alive with a unique tattoo of a spider lilly emblazoned on her arm. Jade also wants to acquire this very design, which leads to Takeko exploring internal feelings of the issue via flashbacks and rather minimal discourse with the spunky Jade.

Well, if there's little discourse to write the homebase about, is at least the intercourse memorable? In a word, no. They kiss and feign doing the nasty close to the end, but just as Eternal Summer reminded us not long ago, there's a gulf measured in lightyears between showing sexual content and making ticket buyers think they're about to see sexual content.

This cynical expectation-building seals Spider Lillies' fate. With a weak story, ho-hum acting and an overall dearth of relics to take away from the theater with you, this one kind of makes Color Blossoms look good, come to think of it. At least there we got a bit of Teresa Cheung's mammaries. No, Spider Lillies is no AV masterpiece and should be stricken from the playlist of even the most mundane and timid GLB movie festival.

Amazingly for a pseudo-indie release, not even the soundtrack and cinematography produce moments of inspiration. That's just as well, since it makes passing on Spider Lillies much easier. Believe you us, avoid it and you won't be missing out on anything good.

Rating: * *


Anthony Quinn is a master at capturing our heart and sympathy. He portrays a Romanian peasant with a below average IQ, harassed by his wife to do more. It's WWII and the Nazis have taken over his country. Soon he finds himself digging entrenchments hoping to benefit himself in his wife's eyes. The Nazis have different ideas. Through the next years we watch events unfold through his naive eyes, but all he wants to do is go home. His manipulations and ill luck just get him in further hot water. Finally, through no fault of his own, we see his picture on the cover of 'Der Spiegel' as the perfect Aryan. The war ends and the allies put him on trial for war crimes. But all our peasant wants to do is return home to his wife.


MINOR SPOILERS

Misunderstood classic remains one of Henson's finest and most personal films. It may seem funny to call a movie as beloved as this one 'misunderstood,' but people do seem to remember this one mostly for Jerry Juhl's snappy screenplay and Paul Williams's knockout songs. Now while these things are admittedly great, as is the movie's formal playfulness (screenplay-within-the-screenplay, film break, etc.), what distinguishes 'The Muppet Movie' from the other Muppet films is the serious, wistful thread that runs through the picture. It's a road movie, all right, but like most road movies, the pleasure is in the getting there, and the achievement of the characters' goals is tempered by uncertainty, and by the knowledge that they can never really go back again. Throughout the film, we are shown the down side of show business, even before the Muppets have 'made it': Piggy abandons Kermit without a second thought at a phone call from her agent, Gonzo expresses the loneliness and regret of a performer's life on the road in his haunting 'I'm Going to Go Back There Someday,' and, worst of all, Kermit is continually tortured and tested by Doc Hopper, who wants him to commercialize his art for the unholiest of purposes. (One can only wonder what Henson would have made of his family's management of the company after his death.) Kermit himself agonizes over his choices in the desert conversation scene, and the final 'Magic Store' number questions whether it's all been worth it, before concluding that it probably doesn't matter either way. All this is punctuated with the expected Muppet chaos and satire and deliciously awful jokes, and of course the serious stuff wouldn't work if it weren't. But 'The Muppet Movie' isn't just another jokefest, as the rest of the diminishing-return Muppet films would become. No, it's a lovely, gentle metaphor about the relationship between art and entertainment and business, and it's every bit as effective today as it was 25 years ago. 9.5 out of 10.


Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.

I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.

Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little.


At your video store, you might find this gem.

The human condition in modern times LA. No exaggerated drama, just a collapsing of events that might happen to any group of individuals over time.

Helps you understand the joys and desperation of urban life.

The direction and cutting are top class. Cinematography and music very much follows the mood and situation. And the CAST!!!

Excellent casting and excellent acting. No one out of place or out of character.

And it's NOT really as much a downer as you would expect. I gave it 7 of 10.

If you havent seen it, DO!


I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the 'Spirit of St. Louis' was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.

Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather dull story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel.


You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.

The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.

Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.

I strongly recommend it 9.5/10


I was amazed about this early performance of Clint Eastwood. I had not read a summary of the film, when I decided to watch it on TV. Due to Mr. Eastwood, I expected some nice shootings and no deep story. I was quite mistaken. I found a couple of topics unusually explicitly addressed, and until the end, I couldn't make up my mind about who's good and who's bad. This movie is definitely not typical Eastwood, but surely worth watching.


Jennifer's Shadow is set in Argentina & starts as Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips) arrives there after her sister Johanna dies. Jennifer is left Johanna's large house in her will, Jennifer decides to sell the house & head back to Los Angeles even though her Grandmother Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway) is opposed to the sale. However strange things begin to happen, Jennifer starts having nightmares about Ravens pecking at her & she starts to feel very ill. After a check up in hospital it seems that one of her kidney's have mysteriously disappeared, what is happening to Jennifer? Is it an ancient family curse? Will Jennifer be the next to succumb to it...

This Argentinian American co-production was co-written & co-directed by Daniel de la Vega & Pablo Parés & is a really dull waste of ninety odd minutes, a tedious & predictable modern ghost story that I would imagine will put more people to sleep sooner than scare them. The script by Vega, Parés & P.J. Pettiette is pretty slow going & tedious which is not what anyone wants, I mean I'm sure most people don't want to sit down & be bored out of their skulls. The character's are all uninteresting & fairly faceless with little or no motivation for anything they do. For instance who is that graveyard caretaker guy? How did he know about the demons? What is his interest & motivation for getting involved? I couldn't see it. Jennifer herself is a pretty unlikable & bland leading lady, her Grandmother Mary Allen is as clichéd as they come & it's surprising that she is so obviously the villain. I mean for this sort of mystery based horror/ghost story it's surprisingly predictable & routine. There are gaps in both logic & the story which together with the terrible twist ending which isn't much of a twist I didn't like Jennifer's Shadow one iota.

Directors Vega & Parés goes down the much used route of bleaching almost all of the colour from the picture which often renders it not too far from black and white, I suspect that they wanted to give it a period Gothic feel but it's been done so many times before & often so much better that it didn't do much for me at all & just makes the whole film look dull & lifeless. There's a definite 40's period look as well, from the costumes to the interior of the large house but again it's rather half hearted & cheap looking. Jennifer's Shadow is well made but it's rather forgettable, it's not scary or creepy & it's rather predictable. If that wasn't enough there's no gore either, there's a few scenes of Ravens pecking away at people & a beating heart but nothing else.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 & retitled to The Chronicles of the Raven for it's US & international DVD release this is reasonably well made but a million won't buy you too much these days & Jennifer's Shadow pretty much proves that theory. There are too many scenes of actor's speaking in thick Argentinian accents as well, even though it might be realistic I actually like to be able to understand what people are saying. The acting is alright although Dunaway overacts badly & is obviously there for the money.

Jennifer's Shadow is a rubbishy ghost film that I thought was a total bore from start to finish, I would rather watch The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) again instead. A total waste of time.


This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.


Okay, this film probably deserves 7 out of 10 stars, but I've voted for '10' to help offset the misleading rating from the handful of bozo's who gave this film zero or 1 star reviews. Each of the segments for this anthology shows great potential and promise for the talented filmmakers... three of whom have gone on to achieve notable success in big-time Hollywood productions. Performances range from rough all the way up to completely impressive, with notable turns by Bill Paxton, James Karen, Vivian Schilling and Brion James. Martin Kove may be a big melodramatic as the psychotic hypnotist with the bizarro strobe-lamp, and Lance August seems intentionally dimwitted as an unsuspecting lab victim. But overall, it's got some great laughs and some genuinely scary moments. Definitely worth seeing, so judge for yourself!


One of the weaker Carry On adventures sees Sid James as the head of a crime gang stealing contraceptive pills. The fourth of the series to be hospital-based, it's possibly the least of the genre. There's a curiously flat feel throughout, with all seemingly squandered on below-par material. This is far from the late-70s nadir, but Williams, James, Bresslaw, Maynard et al. are all class performers yet not given the backing of a script equal to their ability.

Most of the gags are onrunning, rather than episodic as Carry Ons usually are. So that instead of the traditional hit and miss ratio, if you don't find the joke funny in the first place you're stuck with it for most of the film. These continuous plot strands include Williams  for no good reason  worrying that he's changing sex, and Kenneth Cope in drag. Like the stagy physical pratt falls, the whole thing feels more contrived than in other movies, and lacking in cast interest. Continuing this theme, Matron lacks the customary pun and innuendo format, largely opting for characterisation and consequence to provide the humour. In fact, the somewhat puerile series of laboured misunderstandings and forced circumstance reminds one more of Terry and June ... so it's appropriate that Terry Scott is present, mugging futilely throughout.

Some dialogue exchanges have a bit of the old magic, such as this between Scott and Cope: 'What about a little drink?' 'Oh, no, no, I never touch it.' 'Oh. Cigarette then?' 'No, I never touch them.' 'That leaves only one thing to offer you.' 'I never touch that either.' That said, while a funny man in his own right (livening up the duller episodes of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) no end), you do feel that Cope isn't quite tapped in to the self-parodying Carry On idealology and that Bernard Bresslaw dressed as a nurse would be far funnier. This does actually happen, in part, though only for the last fifteen minutes.

Williams attempting to seduce Hattie Jacques while Charles Hawtrey is hiding in a cupboard is pure drawer room farce, but lacks the irony to carry it off. That said, Williams's description of premarital relations is priceless: 'You don't just go into the shop and buy enough for the whole room, you tear yourself off a little strip and try it first!' 'That may be so,' counters Jacques, 'but you're not going to stick me up against a wall.' Williams really comes to life in his scenes with Hattie, and you can never get bored of hearing a tin whistle whenever someone accidentally flashes their knickers.

Carry On Matron is not a bad film by any means, just a crushingly bog-standard one.


Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about 'zombies' in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The 'zombies' here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.

The film is set during World War I. A 'French Cambodian' contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to 'wipe out the white race'.

One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.

Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean 'will to power'). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.

Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusingHalperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.

If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.


Despite the lack of logic present in the storyline, Kill Shot is a highly enjoyable film. Through a moving performance Kasper Van Dien brilliantly portrays the emotional rift between a hard working wealthy father and his misguided son. Each member of the supporting cast pitches in with a solid performance, highlighted by the vivid acting of a young asian man whose name I cannot recall. A shockingly tragic ending may unnerve some younger viewers, but as a whole Kill Shot truly delivers a death blow.


I stopped watching lost at this episode because I thought Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths were unnecessary and really depressing. Then I found out that they kept Libby around just to die in the next episode! Gah! I can't handle it.

I liked this show for the first season, but it definitely declined in the second season, I found Jack and Locke's little religious feud to be annoying. The deaths of Rodriguez & Watros' characters was the final straw!

I give this episode a 4/10, for being the end to my viewing of this formerly great series created by Alias legend J.J. Abrams. I hope his series in the future will improve on this one.


Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.


Many movies try to take universal themes and make a comedy; but few will rise to the occasion like 'Checking Out.' The movie is brilliant. The dialogue is well written and true to form. The acting is absolutely prima. Peter Falk has given a truly great performance - as an actor; as an actor. He is able to carry the cast to greatness. Another great performance is given by Laura San Giacomo. She is such an intriguing actress. Her performances take one by surprise. She delivers no matter what role she is asked to give - from wacko in Stephen King's 'The Stand' to her television performances. However, 'Checking Out' allows her to shine. It is a role she is meant to play. The film is brilliantly directed by Jeff Hare. He was able to bring out the best in his cast and his direction - in every aspect - made the film a wonderful treasure. Jeff Hare was able to make a difficult theme laughable and yet profound. He gives us an up close and personal look at why indie films need to be made. The directors knowledge of his cast and script are extended to the finished film. The results are superb.

Hopefully, it will be made available to large audiences because this is one you won't want to miss. It has the potential of being the sleeper hit of 2005 - in the fashion of 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding.'


After the return of 'horror movies' (come on Scream isn't scary!) i didn't have very high hopes for this low-budget three story horror movie. But i was positively surprised! Man this is scary!!! The first 2 stories are simply brilliant. The first one about a new wed couple driving in a dark forest with their RV, When they bump into a fierce........(watch the movie)! The second story is about a disgusting man who is obsessed with a little girl, who is home alone for one night.... I know it doesn't sound any special but it is Scary. I promise you. The last story isn't scary but atleast not bad. It's about a biker and a ghosthouse. In fact the stories are based on real urban legends(i guess kevin williamson can steal ideas too).Rent this movie it is Good!!! i'd say i'ts the scariest three-short-story-horror-movie ever made!


Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic 'Ed Wood' (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.

But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And 'Glen or Glenda,' his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.

'Glen or Glenda' is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fiancée Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called 'The Scientist' played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled 'I Changed My Sex!' was previously to be based.

Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that 'Glen or Glenda,' despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. 'Glen or Glenda' is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams 'Pull the string!' over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.

I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies 'innocent fun' but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if 'Citizen Kane' is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then 'Glen or Glenda' is probably the Mariana Trench.


I think I usually approach film festival comedies with the low expectation that they will invariably be 'quirky,' and that any intended humor will be derived solely at the expense of the characters' simplicity in the face of a complicated context. What was exceptional about Big Bad Swim was that the director was able to maintain the integrity and development of his characters in his film while still finding laugh-out-loud humor in scene after scene. There was a sophistication, maybe due also in part to the sharp work of the DP, I've rarely seen in an indie film, and even more rarely in a comedy. Of special note here: Paget Brewster's turn as Amy the math teacher. After seeing this performance I cannot understand why Brewster hasn't been 'discovered' by a larger audience. She brings the necessary mix of anger and likability to the role that really helps this picture reach its potential. This is a terrific work deserving of a larger audience. I look forward to more from the director and this cast!


'Unhinged' is one strange little film, a forgotten slasher from the golden age of the genre. It's hard to really write a satisfying review of this film simply because of the fact that the film is so unique. It's plot is fairly overdone--three young women on their way to a rock concert get in a car crash and end up stranded at the mansion of an eccentric old woman and her spinster daughter. Very quickly, the ladies realize something is not quite right when they hear strange breathing and noises from the attic. On top of that, the mother and daughter seem to have a very, very strange relationship, as they quarrel intensely in front of their houseguest at dinner. The old mother even goes as far as calling her daughter a whore and slut and accuses her of sneaking guys in at night to sleep with them. Halfway through the film, when one girl finally decides she better wander off to find help, the killing begins.

As far as the acting goes, this film is at the bottom of the barrel. NONE of the three stranded girls can act, particularly the 'lead' girl. It is almost unbelievable to hear them deliver their lines in the same, wooden tone throughout the film. The mother and daughter are better, but not much. The film is also quite dull in parts and really, really drags. The killings are gruesome, but nothing we haven't seen before. However, as mentioned on here, the film really gains points with it brilliantly disturbing and gory ending. It comes totally from left field and has the same shock value as the ending the the camp classic 'Sleepaway Camp.' Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a bore and suffers from horrendous acting and boring, boring pacing. The isolated, creepy looking mansion and the dark, foreboding lighting does give the film a grainy realism, but that is quickly shattered when one of the characters attempts to act. It may be worth it if you can stick it out until the end, but I say you are better off just fast forwarding to the last 10 minutes. 4 out 10


The TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours.

The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy/mystery but I didn't see much of either.

If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.

This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?


This is one of the best sequels around and a very good movie too even there were some mistakes but still I enjoyed it. This time, Charles is not just fighting one or two muggers but a whole army of them. Death Wish 3 has a lot great action scenes and I enjoyed it every single second of it. Director Michael Winner knows how to direct a good action movie like this and Jimmy Page providing the music, with producers Golan and Globus still doing there thing and Charles Bronson is still acting good for Paul Kersey. This movie also made it look like that Michael try to end the Death Wish series and I can't blame him and I love the Gun that Charles uses. Death Wish 3 is one of the great movies of 1985 and can't get any better than this.

I gives this 9/10


When I first saw 'Before Night Falls', Javier Bardem had just been nominated for an Academy Award. I thought 'he's got it!'. He didn't. I watched 'Mar Adentro' last night. Please give it to him this time... This is an actor. Convincing, touching, emotional, brilliant. See also 'Los Lunes al Sol' and you will understand what I am talking about. He is an absolute chameleon and I swear it's not only the result of make-up work. This movie is so beautiful, so well done, the characters are so real. Congratulations to Alejandro Amenábar (how about a Best Director nomination?). I also have to mention the make-up artists. I can't think of another word but magnificent. I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves. As far as I am concerned, it already has...


As a French, i found it very pleasant to be able to laugh at the old stereotype which is made of French like that, at some defaults of Westerners, at Spy movies etc...and at a lot of other things too, en route... I already saw it 3 times and each time i discovered new things and laughed to tears... Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Béjo, Aure Atika the director and all the cast, all the crew did a fantastic job. This movie is funny but is although much more than that : it's got plenty of levels to it. You laugh because of simple gags, because of some critics made with wit (the movie's courageous enough to be critical), because of physical comedy, because you believe in the characters etc... Esthetically and musically, it's a success too. Go see it if you can.


A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.

The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.

I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.

Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.

Which brings me to my second and main reason 'I hate it'. The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.

The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a 'normal' concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you.


Surreal film noir released soon after the 'real,' genre-defining classics 'The Maltese Falcon,' 'Double Indemnity' and 'The Postman Always Rings Twice.' Welles films shouldn't be evaluated against others. He was playing by different rules. In fact, he was playing. This starts where other femme fatale films leave off, so the vaguely logical (but interesting) whodunit is embellished with a display of Wellesian scenes (typical rapid-fire style), dialog (lots of 'hard-boiled' philosophy), and unusual acting (good Hayworth presumably intentionally one-dimensional). To Welles 'genre' may have meant 'formula' but he seemed to like using 'mysteries' as backgrounds for his 'entertainments.'


I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.


Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!


I saw this movie years ago and I never forgot it. The theme is very timely. It was on TCM this morning and I am wondering why this wonderful film is not on VHS or DVD. I have searched extensively for this movie but cannot find it. I believe that if enough people request it, the movie will ultimately be put on DVD. It amazes me that such a stunning performance from Quinn and such a powerful plot is not yet available to the public. The fact that ethnic cleansing exists today in many parts of the world makes this film a must see for teachers and students alike. This film is a great teaching tool from the past yet in many ways as contemporary as 'Crash'. From previous comments I can see that this film as made deep impressions on everyone. Again, too bad it is not available for sale.


Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.


This seemed to be a good movie, I thought it would be a good movie, and throughout the movie I was hoping it would be a meaningful use of my time, and yes, I have to admit that the acting talent of Dimple Kapadia and Deepti Naval where truly commendable, but despite the best effort this movie falls short of effectively conveying a meaningful message, which it seems is it seemed was what Somnath Sen is trying to do. The final point comes short and the ending seemed kind of unsatisfactory after all that happens; a bit like real life in that respect but movies unlike real life ends in about 2hrs and the ending should leave the audience satisfied, if indeed that was the director's intention. This falls short in that respect and that is what disappoints me the most.

Another aspect that concerned me was the national stereo-typing of the American characters - they all seem to be carved out of the same block. Seems to me that most American characters in Indian English movies are based upon how common Indians themselves perceive Americans to be like and it is clear that no effort has been made to bring any sense of depth or complexity to any American in the movie.

These two aspects put together they make for a disappointing story.


Jammin' the Blues is an Oscar-nominated short from 1944 that is basically 10 minutes of improvisational jazz played in one long jam. Marie Bryant sings 'The Sunny Side of the Street' at one point for the film's highlight then jitterbugs with Archie Savage to bring this most entertaining 'jam session' to its exciting end. The director Gojn Mili was a photographer and that experience shows in some of the double exposure shots of some of the musicians that makes this one of the most innovative angles of the '40s. According to some notes I read one of the musicians was white and had to be filmed in silhouette in reflection of the social attitudes of the time. What a shame. Still, this most unusual film of the time is available on YouTube so if you love jazz, I suggest you seek it out there.


I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence .


I don't think I've ever been so bowled over by the sheer absurdity of a movie in my entire life as i was when i walked out of this piece of crap. NOTHING in it makes any sense. none of it is clever or well thought out. out of lack of truly suspenseful moments they repeatedly use that total cop-out trick where you build up the music before the character does something like open a door or push aside a curtain and then nothing's there. thats OK to do once, maybe, but i counted three times. there are things thrown in for no apparent reason, characters, half-formed story lines.... the characters weren't well developed at ALL. the ending was.. bad. bad, bad, bad, everything, every component, of this film is terrible. and I'm just here to warn you all of that.


John Cassavetes' 'Opening Night' is fantastic and fascinating; fantastic because it plays with the deepest fears we have inside our imagination, fascinating because it never ceases surprising us. With its very long duration of two hours and twenty minutes, anyone who appreciates characters won't be able to take their eyes off the screen.

The story of an unstable actress, Myrtle Gordon, (Gena Rowlands) trying to put herself together for a play, fighting her demons; 'Opening Night' is not only about a woman on the verge of a breakdown but also about the complexities of the lives of theater actors and the theatrical world. All of Cassavetes' characters here are experienced people that know about the world of theater; so half of the film takes place on a stage, either where the performers do their job or at backstage, where producers and writers and directors do their job.

Cassavetes is so harsh with his characters that this unkindness turns towards the audience, but the audience in the cinema. Because there is another audience, in the theater of the film, that doesn't know what is really happening and laugh because they think everything is performance. And that's essentially what it is; it's just that the audience in the theater doesn't get to see 'backstage' the way we do. They don't experience Gena Rowlands' exuberance before she goes out to that stage, but most importantly; they don't know the reasons why she acts the way she does.

I always thought that it would be difficult to be friends with an actor. Myrtle (Rowland) says she's an actress and that's the only thing she knows how to do; and I imagine that if I had a friend who was a professional performer, it would be really difficult to tell when he's saying the truth because I would know he's an actor and he can fake anything at any time. A lot of the things that Myrtle does during the awful experiences the film puts her throughWe suspect if she's being real; the rest of the characters suspect too.

There is the writer, Sarah (Joan Blondell), who can't understand why Myrtle doesn't understand the character she's written for her. There's the director, Manny (Ben Gazzara), who can't accept the fact that his best actress might be losing it; the producer David (Paul Stewart) who doesn't know where to stand and Myrtle's co-star Maurice (Cassavetes himself), who can't deal with the love they have for each other.

When she witnesses the death of a teenager, a fan; all of this comes together and affects Myrtle, but no one knows if her delusions are for real. They don't say anything because they don't want to upset her, but the movie enters in a state of subconsciousness that only Myrtle accepts. At times, we can tell that everyone has had it. During these moments, Cassavetes' brilliant script depicts a scary brutal honesty in the words the characters say in a discussion backstage; and not only what everyone tells Myrtle but also what she says to them.

Here are people who are not afraid to speak their mind and constantly change what they are thinking, just like Cassavetes' way of making cinema. And in this aspect, the performances are more important here than in 'Shadows', because the characters are involved in a bigger picture; a bigger story that steps out of the trivial.

But in another aspect, the actual way of making cinema, this movie is no different from 'Shadows'. There's a beautiful thing in the way Al Ruban's camera shoots the characters. When someone's talking, the camera doesn't focus on him, it shoots the person who is listening; so we can see how he or she reacts to the things the other one's saying. Sometimes they don't care, sometimes they are happy, sometimes devastated.

Improvisation might still be there, though, among all these wonderful performances. Near the end, there's an unexpected scene where Cassavetes and Rowlands start talking, non-stop. Whether this was improvised or not is not something we have to wonder. We have just got to watch; and watching both of them exchanging life experiences and seeing words come truly alive in a conversation that means a lot more than what it showsIt doesn't get more natural than that.


I am a gigantic fan of both Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, but this movie is just not good. The reviewer below is entirely correct that the stunning imagery of the Detroit station is the first and last memorable scene in the film. I really, really wish I had left after that, instead of continuing to hold out hope throughout the film. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I felt let down.

The score is almost completely a rehash of the previous two - not necessarily a bad thing if you're a fan, but there's only one piece that stood out to me as being fresh. It was good enough, though, that I'll still probably check out the soundtrack.

But just keep this in mind if you see this film: if you come to realize at any point that you're not enjoying it, go ahead and split - you won't miss a thing, because it won't get any better.

I'll even give the executive summary here (warning! spoilers!): lots of shots of athletes that look almost good enough for a Nike commercial, shots of smiling people, inexplicably dull frontal head shots of famous people's wax dummies (WTF were they thinking here?!?), some giggling babies (cuuuuute), some 'bitchin'' Photoshop effects, some imagery that's meant to suggest a comparison between the flows of water, information, money and people (I think)... and then a bunch of quick unrelated scenes of mass violence... and then a bunch of stock space footage.

I could remake this movie in 10 seconds. Here's my pitch:

2 seconds of a happy daddy with a shaved head and lycra biking shorts playing with a toddler playing with a kitten playing with string; 5 seconds of that scene in 'Network' where the guy talks about messing with the 'elemental forces of nature' and how 'money flows in, money flows out;' 1 second of Reginald Denny getting brained with a brick, and then 3 seconds of Alan Bean bouncing around on the moon.

There you go - that's 88 minutes and 50 seconds of your life I just saved. Of course, I'd get a copy of After Effects and apply a filter or two, so it wouldn't look as blatantly stock as it is. If Steven Soderbergh's reading this, hey, I won't even need much money for this project...

If you insist upon watching a movie about 'Life as War,' I suggest 'Bowling for Columbine' instead. It may not have the pseudo-intellectual veneer so fashionable among the black turtleneck crowd, but at least it's funny.


Boogie Nights was without a doubt the best film of 1997. I could watch this movie over and over and over and still love it. I'm in no rush to watch that overblown romance/disaster epic Titanic again. The fact that Boogie Nights did not even receive a Best Picture nomination just goes to prove how predictable and narrow-minded the Academy is. Only Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter and Robert Zemeckis's Contact came close to being as great as Boogie Nights. No other filmmaker in recent years has come even remotely close to making a film as good as Tarantino's Pulp Fiction -- until now. Paul Thomas Anderson rose to the challenge and succeeded. Just as Tarantino gave John Travolta's career a kick, P.T. Anderson has given Burt Reynolds the kick that his career needs. Boogie Nights will also undoubtedly make stars of Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, and John Reilly. Overall, a wonderful film. The best since Pulp Fiction. Maybe even better.


After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated 'Comeback' TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well  SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing  as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones  Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day!

While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...


This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.


Not a stunner, but a good movie to see once or twice. Bill Macy shows he can do more than just act; his writing was pretty darn good. Great supporting cast, especially Jamie Cromwell as the extortionist private eye.

The movie's greatest strength is the work of Macy, who reminds us of his Jerry Lundergaard role from Fargo. He has numerous scenes where he is extremely funny as a slimy, manipulating and deceitful character. It's enjoyable to watch him be a weasel, and for a while I was happy that things were turning out well for him. *** out of four.


I have been trying to track The Age of Kings down for many, many years.My theater life was filled with the actors in this series. At the time, in 1960 I was not able to follow all of it, as I was myself working in the theater, lots of night work. Now in retirement I LONG to have this and keep it to myself. Please, please can it not be issued on DVD, I would not mind what it cost. I see that there are others out there who feel the same. What can we do to get this done? Something as great as this should not be sent into oblivion. I have to write two more lines. OK I can do that by saying that I want this series more than anything in the world. Just to be able to watch some of the finest actor of our age playing out the finest words of our wonderful Shakespeare. Isn't that enough! A Uzmen


This movie was so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.


Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun.


This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.


this was the best bonnie and clyde movie i have seen. it has more accurate accounts of what happened and while it doesnt glorify their crimes it casts the pair in a normal light. i give this movie a 10. it has great actors,realistic scenes and excellent writers.


This movie was fabulous. It is definitely a top 5 hitchcock film. The directing and camera shots are nearly flawless(aside from the dog scene when he licks the guys hand, clearly in slow motion). The plot is well written and realistic. It was very believable that an innocent man could fall into a trap like that.

 I would rate Bruno as hitchcocks second most interesting character( of course bates is first). Robert Walker plays a very believable maniac. He didnt overact the part which made it believable(much the same how perkins didnt overact his part). Overall this is an excellent movie, an absolute must see for any hitchcock fans.


Paul Reiser is one of my favorite people in show business. I have read both of his books and think that he is great. Peter Faulk can deliver a punch line with the best of them. The combination of the two is magic.

This is a story about a family really getting to know each other. Through a road trip a father and son connect for the first time in their lives in the midts of a family crisis. They do all the things that fathers and sons are suppose to do in life...they are just doing them much later in life. The situations are very funny, but have the feeling that they could actually happen to people in real life (not obsurdly over the top or cartoonish). This is the first time that I watch Paul Reiser and fully believed every emotion that was portrayed. At times, his eyes look so sad.

Gret movie and great story and plot. It has comedy and emotion but an uplifting message...Olympia Dukakas does a great job also :)


PLOT IN A NUTSHELL: Dave Seville, father figure & manager of the Chipmunk brothers Alvin, Simon & Theodore, has gone off to Europe on a business trip, leaving the boys at home with Miss Miller as their watcher, much to the chagrin of Alvin, who wanted to go to Europe. While playing against his female counterpart, Brittany, the leader of the Chipettes, comprised of her younger sisters Jeanette (the female counterpart of Simon) and Eleanor (the female counterpart of Theodore) in a fierce arcade game of Around the World in 30 Days, they catch the attention of two evil foreign siblings who need to smuggle money & diamonds around the world, but need a way to do it that won't draw the attention of their arch enemy, Jamal. The 2 evil siblings, Claudia & Klaus, overhear the banter between Alvin & Brittany and decide to use them as the delivery boys & girls for their loot (more Claudia's idea than Klaus's, the latter initially objects feeling that it's too dangerous for children). The 2 siblings make an offer to the boys & girls - travel via air balloons to 12 drop off points to leave dolls (which resemble the kids) that contain diamonds and/or money to indicate their arrival, with the promise that whoever wins the race will get an obscene amount of money. But as the two different set of talking animal siblings make their rounds, they are stalked by the henchmen of Jamal - but who is Jamal? Is he friend or foe?

OVERALL: Enjoyable, lighthearted farce based on the 1980s TV series version of Alvin & the Chipmunks. Beautiful animation is a highlight, lacks the crude humor that keeps creeping into today's family films and engaging songs (Boys & Girls of Rock & Roll being a stand out). Eagle eyed fans will probably notice that Brittany's character design has been tweaked from the animated series, giving her a less round face while adding a seemingly permanent blush to cheeks (which Jeanette & Eleanor also display).

Keep an ear out for Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson.


Considering the lack of art with in African cinema (or Black American Cinema). The Idea offers a multidimensional look at a community assigned to hoods and dealers. But the funny thing is this is not at all the focus or even the subject of the short. But it is the unstated assertion of independence from these themes that is most sticking. The genre is unique and not the typical expectation. It is almost this departure which first catches the eye, so watching it twice is critical. The film has an aesthetic quality which lends its self to the true art of cinema.

And it is this true art that with an African voice that is extremely rare. The film doesn't copy to attain its message, it innovates and provokes by pulling at subtle stereotypes (not racial but character based stereotypes), From a writers perspective the film is brilliant. It carries multiply messages which include a very rapid character development. It must be remember this film is less than 10 minutes and it manages to establish character very quickly. The usage of colour texture and music is also to be commended. But considering the director, Owen Alik Shahadah's last venture 500 Years Later, music is to be expected. But from a theme point-of view it seems like the idea is a departure but the satire eludes indirectly to a social problembrilliant stuff!


The three-part series ended last night on PBS, which I believe was its first wide exposure to an American audience. The richness of its text and the unique quality of its filming are high points. It seems very novel to view and hear an action play employing the vernacular of Georgian England, Jane Austen's filmed drawing rooms being the primary example of that form of speech. Yet it is the scope of drama overwhelming the senses that makes quaint language fit perfectly into each and every scene. Such bold exposure to an old reality is evocative of literary giants like Tolstoy or Shakespeare while at the same time entertaining in the manner of a C. S. Forester or Patrick O'Brian sea saga. The universality of basic human condition lies at its center.

Narrator Talbot as played by an actor with the almost perfectly appropriate name of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely not even Dickens could beat that one!) alternates between stodgy jingoism and extreme vulnerability, an acting tour de force. Indeed, I cannot recall among this very fine cast any misstep of interpretation. That is a tribute not only to the actors themselves, but to the director as well.

The most impressive element, however, is how perfectly life aboard a man-of-war en route to Australia in the early 1800's is presented. That is especially true of how the motion of the ship becomes almost a character itself, something sea stories rarely take into account except as backdrop. Anyone who has ever experienced mal de mer in person will recognize it instantly, and appreciate all the more how difficult it must have been to recreate within the context of filming.

This is no fanciful Pirates of the Caribbean. Some effort must be expended in attaining an understanding of its nuances.


Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.

We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.

soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.

Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.

firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.

furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.

The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.

enjoy.


Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one.


I saw part of this film on the Sci-Fi Channel, but missed the ending. I bought the DVD to see the whole movie, and I'm glad I did.

A young mother and her two daughters move into a house out in a backwoods area that they inherited from the husband, who died from an illness. It's very run down, but the three women make the best of it. The teen daughter (Scout Taylor-Compton) is warned by a local boy about the zombies that come out at night. She ignores him, but since he has a cute friend, she joins his group. Meanwhile, the younger daughter (Chloe Grace Moretz) makes a friend in a zombie girl her age named Mary. It turns out that Mary and several other kids died in a mine in 1913 while working as child labor. Now that they are zombies, they attack and kill anyone who's not a blood relative.

This movie was directed by J.S. Cardone, whose previous films include The Slayer (1981) and Shadowzone (1990), two movies I didn't like in the slightest bit. This is why I was surprised that I actually enjoyed this movie. The film is deliberately paced, which I liked. This allows you to get to know the main characters, most of whom are likable. Child zombies have been used at least since George Romero's 1968 classic Night Of The Living Dead. Still, I found the tool-using child zombies in this movie interesting. It would seem that Cardone finally found the right script and cast. Only the stereotypical scenes of the teens smoking, drinking and making out in a parked car were boring to me.

Taylor-Compton also appears in the Halloween remake. Moretz appeared in The Amityville Horror (2005) and the horror film Room 6 (2006).


The emotional powers and characters of Dominick and Eugene are the things that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. This is one of the most emotional, sensitive, and heart-felt movies that I have ever seen! Roy Liotta, Tom Hulce, and supporting actress Jamie Lee Curtis, deliver Oscar Winning caliber performances! There are not enough words to express how great this movie is. Sure, people who are not into sentimental movies may not care as much as the rest of us about Dominick and Eugene, but for the rest of us, this movie goes right to the heart and sole of compassion and humanity. You will never forget this film, EVER!

*****SPOILERS BELOW*****

The simple yet eloquent story is masterfully told. Eugene is a med-school intern who faces long hours and a demanding work load at the hospital. His fraternal twin brother Dominick (born 12 minutes earlier) is a little slow and awkward because of brain damage due to a victim of abuse by their father. (A heartbreaking moment when this is found out in the film that will leave you in tears!) Eugene (a.k.a 'Geno') faces a painful dilemma. He must decide whether to finish medical school, which would mean accepting his residency in another city and leave Dominick (a.k.a 'Nicky') behind, or forfeit the rest of his education to take care of him. Nicky helps pay his brother's med-school tuition by working as a trash collector.

The questions of ethics, morals, and responsibilities are masterfully blended in this landmark movie. Just when Gino thinks Nicky might be making progress toward independence, Dominick turns around and winds up doing things like helping out a drug dealer, or tying to use a faulty cord that he finds at the dump on an electrical appliance.

Larry, is 'The Character' and Nicky's partner on his garbage route who fills gullible Dominick's head with all kinds of stories like Geno and Jennifer (his girlfriend, whom he is tutoring in Clinical Pharmacology) going to Atlantic City and gambling away all their money. But deep down, you can see that Larry cares for him. On their rounds, Nicky also befriends a little boy, whom we find out has also been beaten by his father. An end result is also tragic and the pain that you see on Nicky's face when it happens, speaks volumes.

The sensitivity that the two brothers share for each other can not be overstated enough. All Nicky wants to do is be loved and look for acceptance in anyway he can. (i.e he goes to church, loves Hulk Hogan) Geno loves Nicky more than anything in the world. But can his brother become independent enough so that Geno can pursue his dream of becoming a doctor? A brilliant film that should have gotten tons more recognition than it deserved, but unfortunately came out around the same time as Rain Man, which dealt with a similar issue. However, I like Dominick and Eugene better because it has a far stronger emotional component. Be forewarned that this movie is aimed right at the tear-ducts, so have Kleenex handy! What a film!!!!


Maggie Smith and Peter Ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all.

The film shows promise for Ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. He convinces Robert Morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by Karl Malden and Bob Newhart, another unusual duo for films.

Morley sounds just as he did in 1938's 'Marie Antoinette.' Perhaps, he needed to return to that genre.

This film is ridiculous at best. Hard to believe that the following year, Maggie Smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering Oscar performance in 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.'

Ms. Smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb-red head, but by film's end, she is the brains of the outfit. Too bad the writing didn't go the way with her.


One of the major successes to The Decline of Western Civilization, filmmaker Penelope Spheeris' indie breakthrough, is that it can perhaps appeal to non-punk fans as to the hardcore ones. More importantly, it captures a moment in history before the movement became completely 'market-worthy', when bands would play (or, at the least, try to play in some cases) in dank, dirty clubs to an audience that had as much self-respect as they had respect for the bands. For the fan, such as myself, there are precious interviews with some of the quasi-legends of LA's punk-scum, some dead, some still living and still hard-working in the scene.

Performances and interviews include the likes of The Circle Jerks, X, Black Flag (in the pre-Henry Rollins days), Catholic Discipline, Fear, the Alice Bag Band, and most memorable (in my opinion) being the Germs. While I knew of a few of the bands and performers in the film (The Jerks and Black Flag mostly), I had only heard rumors about lead singer (the late) Darby Crash, and from the footage in the film he seems to be one of the, if not the, epitomes of the punk movement. He doesn't take himself too seriously, he loves to drink, sometimes when he speaks it's complete gibberish, and the attitude he brings on stage is both funny and in a free-form way exhilarating. A performer like that would probably scare Steve Miller and Jackson Browne out of their skins.

Decline of Western Civilization may not turn on every non-punk fan that seeks this film out (it's hard to find on video), but it shouldn't necessarily turn them off either. Like a kind of anthropologist that's sneaked into the party, Spheeris gets the behavior of these people down pat, their motives, their likes and hatreds, and the power that was their on and off-screen personas. A few of them almost come off as normal, some don't, but they're only offensive to those who aren't too open to things. On top of that, the film is a must-see to the kinds of kids that think they're punk fans just because they listen to Good Charlotte and Blink-182: if you want to get the real scoop on the movement and genre of rock you profess to love, give the pioneers a chance. A


If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.

Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.

It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !!


This movie is terrible, it was so difficult to believe that Katie became a heartfelt teenager with the power to save the pity Chinese people, the movie didn't show any convincing argument to prove that. And the rest of the plot didn't make any effort to show us more than a cheap common sense...

The plot is ridiculous and the only thing we can extract from it is that it demonstrate how arrogant a human can be. Katie must have inherited her arrogance from her mother, the most annoying character I have seen for a long time.

The acting and scenery were OK, but the plot ruins everything, full of cheap clichés and hypocritical scenes, I expect not to see this movie again in my life. Skip this one!


This movie had me smiling from beginning to end, partly at the humor, partly at Meg Ryan (this is the perfect character for her), and always because it's just one of the best feel-good movies I've seen. Hopefully the DVD will be out soon.