'Dressed to Kill' is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.

Sadly, the original uncut version of 'Dressed to Kill' is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.

Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense),

Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...

I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted 'cock' changed to 'bulge'). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in 'Lost and Delirious' is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.

What makes 'Dressed to Kill' so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.

DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than 'Psycho'. It's a shame that very few actually know that.

**** out of 4 stars


Would somebody please explain why anybody would want to make a 'British neo-noir' crime film with a cast almost entirely American? The accents spoken in this film are bloody awful! But entirely in keeping with the performances, which are so wooden, one fears to strike a match for setting the cast on fire.

Really, what kind of disgusting, moronic, cynical crud is this? Even neo-noir films have some character you either feel for or want to feel for, even if they're wretched and doomed; they at least have some decency to them, some sense that what they've done is wrong, or that a seemingly good plan has gone wrong, and that somehow they're stuck with the responsibility for it.

Not in this stanky stew. These characters are putrid, betraying each other, themselves, and the audience.

Also, note that they are low-lives - all right, nothing wrong with that - except that they seem to be living a life of luxury. For a film supposedly about desperate petty thieves, the keynote here is - ennui. It's all so terribly dull and dross, doncha know. So let's just rip some people off or maybe murder them, and go get laid in a luxury hotel. What ambition!

Gooping this whole mess to some bottom of swampy muck are: boringly uneven pacing; predictable 'action' sequences that aren't; banal and incoherent set-design; made-for-bad-TV camera-work and editing; forgettable score; and an entire lack of any imagination or innovation in production and direction.

Wholly unbelievable, unlikeable, and for less dedicated movie watchers(or masochists) like myself, utterly unwatchable.

There are other nasty things I would like to say about this nasty film, but they wouldn't print them here. Suffice it to say, you can probably find something more useful to do with your time than watch this film - just about anything, in fact.


When I was in 7th grade(back in 1977), I was asked to read the novel that this was based on as part of my English class studies. I can remember being very touched by it and excited when a TV version came out a year later.

Kristy McNichol was a popular TV actress when this film was produced and was already playing a daughter in a dysfunctional family on the hit TV series 'Family'. It was clear that she had the range and ability to pull off this part. I recall her as being a bit 'stiff' at times, but over all she does a good job. She carries the movie well.

Esther Rolle is fantastic as the domestic who appears to be the only one in the household that seems to truly care for her. Barbara Barrie as the somewhat frightened and slightly neurotic mother is also good, as is young Robin Lively (who would eventually appear as the black widow Lana Milford in 'Twin Peaks')as the sweet younger sister who seems to be the focus of the parent's affection. Bruce Davidson is also appropriately appealing as the German soldier of the title

The best performance, however, belongs to Michael Constantine. It is truly powerful and merited more recognition than it got at the time. The bitterness and coldness he expresses makes the scenes in which he appears difficult to watch, but makes it much easier to understand the quiet desperation of the rejected daughter. Constantine gives everything the right intensity and seems to have a good understanding of the underlying psychological motivations.

The film differs from the book only in some small ways. It is wonderful and inspiring to watch, and I hope that it gets released again on to video or DVD.


About the baby: Why wasn't big brother assuming he'd be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change? He should have been screaming non-stop after that many hours without care. Definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he didn't need to.

And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?

I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.

That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change.


Each year the company called Nu produces couple of 'action packed', 'full of suspense' movies. This little nugget, called Shadowcaster III(Until I visited this site I wasn't avare this is a whole trilogy), is a great example of the good job the company is doing. Frank Zagarino is as mean as always and does a great job as almost undestructable(?), schizophrenic(??) android. I won't waste any more words since I don't want to reveal the terrific plot and ruin you a couple of great laughs.

Rating 2/10 (Revard for those hard working tehnicians. Man, putting together this kind of rubbish must be nervewracking.)


This movie was pathetically awful. The sound was terrible, the action was ridiculous and the effects were nauseating. If you have a life don't see this movie, cause you will want to kill yourself. This movie totally rips off Blade (which is undoubtedly a really good movie...or trilogy I should say).

I don't care who the actors are, this movie is just horrible. I watched 10 minutes of it and had to come to my computer and comment on how absolutely just bad this movie is. I actually don't know why my family is still watching it...oh wait, yes I do. They are laughing almost non-stop at the stupid action, dialogue and acting.


This movie was one of the funniest movie I've seen in years and the laughs from the audience members support me. Not since My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) has the laughter been as spontaneous and intense. Easily has intricate as last year's Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) in its use of parody (espionage in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and sex in My Super Ex-Girlfriend). Director's Ivan Reitman balance between comedy and drama, between crazy and downright ludicrous is great. Never does the shock and dramatic serious crack the rule of comedy. At the same time, this predictable romantic comedy never loses its touching emotional elements even if the ending is broadcast in advance. In some ways, it's so evident that it's great to see how it plays out. Just like in real life, sometimes the truth is so evident that one can't really see it. Easily eight out of ten stars ranking up there with Tootsie (1982). Possibly a nine (depends on how it appears on a second viewing).


When I went to see this movie i thought that this would just be another chic flick i would have to endure with my sister. Plus too Amanda Baynes last movie was not so hot, making me doubt the movie for she is the lead actress.However within 5mins i was laughing so hard i had tears in my eyes, the jokes were not 'out there' that it took more then a second to understand it but very funny. The script was not too complex that I could not understand the love triangle but was very true to the original play by Shakepeare. I loved every minute of it so much that I kicked a guy two seats away from me in a fit of laughter lol!!! very embarrassing! I'd definitely advise people to see this movie especially girls as the guys in this movie are hot hot hot!!(lol) so much so that I might just get it on DVD.


There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with 'Cabin Fever' and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer.


I watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks?


Sensual and tough Maria Braun. (Hanna Schygula) marries a soldier in the middle of World War II and spends a half of day and the whole night with him. That's how long her marriage lasts before she loses him to the war and then to prison. She carries on with her life, becomes a successful businesswoman being not only sensual but intelligent, ambitious, and willing to use sex whenever or wherever necessary: 'I don't know a thing about business, but I do know what German women want. You might even say I'm an expert on it'. While climbing up to the success she always remembers her husband, Hermann (her man) and convinces herself that whatever she does  is for him, for their future happy life together. 'Maria Braun''s style reminds much of melodramas by Fassbinder's favorite Hollywood director, Douglas Sirk and offers a glimpse of the loss and survival in postwar Germany. Hanna Schygula literally shines in every scene of the movie and she is fantastic.

8.5/10


Typically Spanish production - slow-moving, but with great sensuousness and sexuality oozing from the lead actress Paz Vega. (Watch her in 'Spanglish'). Great sets, lots of colour - you get to see Cordoba, Seville, Spanish mountains and countryside. The plot tends to meander here and there, but if you follow closely (I managed to, even though the film is in Spanish), you'll get the gist of it.

It's about how one very highly sensual young Gypsy woman, Carmen, uses her feminine wiles to seduce men to do her bidding. Carmen is being taken to prison after attacking a fellow cigarera at the cigar factory where she works. She persuades Jose, the soldier in charge of taking her to prison, to let her escape. Jose succumbs to her charms because she speaks Basque (he is Navarrese and speaks the same language). Jose is punished by 1 month in jail and demoted to foot soldier. He later meets Carmen at a party and they end up becoming lovers. But Carmen refuses to commit to him, and continues her lascivious and flirty lifestyle. In a jealous rage, Jose kills a fellow soldier who has been with Carmen. They then have to leave town. Life on the run turns Jose into a bandit. Carmen, meanwhile, remains the same, a wildly promiscuous woman. In the end, Jose loses his mind and ends up killing Carmen.

The story is told by Jose in prison, awaiting to be executed. The person he tells the story to is Prospero Merrime, a French writer and anthropologist, whose fancy watch (it plays Beethoven's Fur Elise) was stolen by either Carmen or Jose.

Worth watching for the sets and for the delectable Paz Vega.


Several posters have quoted Renoir voicing his desire to make a film showing Ingrid Bergman smiling to camera. The short answer is wouldn't we all whilst the harsh reality is that only a select few got to do so. At this stage of her career Bergman couldn't get arrested; in 1949 she left Hollywood to make a picture in Europe, fell for director Roberto Rossellini and never looked forward. After five turkeys in Italy she was probably ready to open a vein but within the year, after making this for Renoir, she was back where she belonged and with an Oscar to boot for Anastasia. This is one of three movies that Renoir made in color around this time and on balance it's better than The Golden Coach, which isn't hard, and about even with French Can Can. Renoir probably figured that with so much going for her Bergman could get away with a couple of wooden leading men and Renoir picked two doozys in Jean Marais and Mel Ferrer, solid mahogany in both cases. The plot is actually based on a real incident in French history but Renoir is content to give it a once-over-lightly and concentrate on replicating the paintings of his father in set up after set up. In its pastel colors it resembles another film of the period Les Grandes Manouvres which is no bad thing. All in all it remains a pleasant trifle showcasing a beautiful and charismatic actress.


Inglourious Basterds IS Tarantino's worst film he has ever made. It's full of his usual ingredient's i.e. snappy dialogue, brutal and sudden violence, but it all feel's deja-vu. The directing is typical Tarantino and nothing seem's new at all. It's almost as if he's copied exactly from his only masterpiece, Pulp Fiction.

There is nothing new or exciting about Inglourious Basterds to be honest, it's just a war drama that isn't funny, nor brilliant as Pulp Fiction was. Basterds supposedly is Tarantino's tribute to Leone's Spaghetti western's but seem's mis-jointed and out of place especially with the continuing use of big sub-titles and throw's the audience of balance.


Bonanza had a great cast of wonderful actors. Lorne Greene, Pernell Whitaker, Michael Landon, Dan Blocker, and even Guy Williams (as the cousin who was brought in for several episodes during 1964 to replace Adam when he was leaving the series). The cast had chemistry, and they seemed to genuinely like each other. That made many of their weakest stories work a lot better than they should have. It also made many of their best stories into great western drama.

Like any show that was shooting over thirty episodes every season, there are bound to be some weak ones. However, most of the time each episode had an interesting story, some kind of conflict, and a resolution that usually did not include violence. While Bonanza was a western, the gunfighting was never featured as the main attraction. While I am a fan of The Rifleman and Wanted: Dead Or Alive; those shows usually ended with a gunfight. Gunfights were how many westerns resolved every conflict, and Bonanza was very different in trying to seek peaceful resolutions and harmony instead of killing.

In the early years of Bonanza, there are some interesting episodes that do feature a lot of gunfights. Those episodes stand in contrast to the rest of the series, but they are pretty good in and of themselves. In 1964, when Pernell Whitaker wanted to leave the show, Guy Williams was brought in to replace him. Williams was playing the role of a long-lost cousin. Unfortunately, Whitaker decided to stay one more year, and thus Williams was written out of the series when he moved away to marry Adam's old girlfriend. If Williams had stayed on for the duration of Bonanza, one can only wonder how much better the series would have been in the years after 1965, when Pernell Whitaker left the show.

Undoubtedly, once Pernell Whitaker left the series, the stories focused more on comedy and country hijinks. Whitaker had often played the heavy in many episodes, and his absence left a void in the cast. Little Joe always wanted to play the nice kid, and Hoss always wanted to play the good old boy with a heart of gold. Since Ben was the kind and wise patriarch of the family, that did not leave too much room for any gunfights.

At some point they hired a ranch hand called Candy (David Canary) who became their fourth member of the cast, but Candy was never featured in any gunfights, and he was hardly more than an older version of Little Joe. For a year or two they also had Ben take in some other lost cousin (Jamie, played by the forgettable Mitch Vogel) who was a teenager that was usually getting into some kind of trouble with someone.

Apparently by adding the teenager, the studio was looking to attract younger viewers. It also gave the writers a chance to write episodes about teenage problems, alcohol, delinquency, etc. Those kind of preachy episodes were popular in the 1960s as a reaction of the establishment media to the counter-culture movement. Dragnet was probably the most popular source of law and order TV, though Hawaii 5-0, The F.B.I. and many other shows also tried to jump on the bandwagon by doing TV shows that featured irresponsible teenagers causing mischief, mayhem, and crime.

The addition of a teenager to the cast gave the Cartwrights more chances to show up and solve problems, but those episodes feel very contrived and are not very good in general. After Dan Blocker died, the series limped along for another year or so before it was canceled. The last season was pretty bad, as it featured Little Joe tracking down the killers of his wife, and most of the episodes were somewhat depressing because Little Joe was usually drinking or otherwise remembering how much he loved his wife, and how unfair it was that she was killed.

I don't think I have ever seen the last episode of the series, and I wonder if they ever officially wrapped it up in some way. By the last year, there was only Ben (Lorne Greene) actually living on the Ponderosa, as Adam had moved away (and never came back even once as a guest) and Hoss had died and Little Joe had left after his wife (in the series) had been killed by drifters.

Overall, the era from 1959-1965 is the best of this series. Once Adam left, it slowly declined. Most of the shows before 1970 are pretty good too. By 1970, the series was trying to hard to be hip and topical, and it had lost a lot of its western flavor. The addition of Candy and the teenage kid also diluted the general quality of the show, and the death of Hoss (Dan Blocker) was the final nail. Bonanza is probably the best western series ever made, and of the 465 episodes that were produced, at least one hundred of them are excellent western drama! That is a pretty good record. Even the worst of Bonanza is better than a lot of other TV shows.


Caution-possible spoilers ahead.. Just watched 'Joe' for the second time. The first time was 30+ years ago on an Air Force Base. I was reminded of that by the Air Force overcoat with Tech. Sgt. stripes wore by the boyfriend/dealer; we airmen had quite a laugh the first time that appeared on the screen because that is a 'lifer' rank. Over the years I have carried several other images from the film. Foremost was the absolutely beautiful and vulnerable daughter of the executive. As someone else commented, you could not take you eyes off her. I did not realize until now that this was a 20-year old Susan Sarandon in her first movie. What a loss that she did not do more movies when she looked like that. I also recall the irony of having a counterculture hero like Peter Boyle playing the title role of a right-wing gun nut. Not unlike George C. Scott playing generals in Dr. Strangelove and Patton. And of course the shocking ending made a lasting impression.

30+ years ago it was the most talked about movie that ever played on the base. We thought it was a great film then and I have been reluctant to see it again because I was afraid that it would be as disappointingly dated as Easy Rider. But watching it today I was amazed at how well the film has held up. It is a very strong script with few holes although you have to wonder about the boyfriend immediately getting out of the bathtub when Sarandon gets in with him.

Searching for an explanation of why this film is still so entertaining I have to think it has something to do with the perfect physical casting. Boyle was physically believable as Joe (as others have pointed out his portrayal would inspire the Archie Bunker character a few 'years later). Did Ted Knight model his 'Caddyshack' character-Judge Smails after the Dennis Patrick's advertising executive in 'Joe'? They look alike and sound alike. Patrick was totally believable as the wrapped-too-tight upper middle class executive. And Sarandon's doe-eyed innocent with the Raggety Ann doll still evokes a protective response from all male viewers-perfect casting.

The nude and drug scenes actually hold up (they were very provocative for their day) and are as explicit as anything to be found in 'Thirteen'. About the only thing that dates this film is that the violence is not realistic or graphic. 'Joe' was about the same time as 'The Wild Bunch', and the tone of movie violence had a just begun to change.

Another reason this film holds up is that events in the past couple of years have brought back the relevancy of the theme and context of this film. In the film both types of 'conservatives' are portrayed as full of fear and hate toward the unconventional ways of the counterculture; and filled with envy at their free and hedonistic lifestyle. The counterculture is portrayed as mocking the straight culture; and although paranoid toward conservatives (legitimately so given that this was just a couple months after Kent State) they cannot resist flaunting their lifestyle in an attempt to antagonize. The political landscape is not all that different 30+ years later. I'm not sure conservatives envy young people and liberals as much as 1970, but they fear and hate them more.

An excellent film that surprisingly is as relevant now as it was in the early 1970's.


Having read many of the comments here, I'm surprised that no one has recognized this as basically an overlong remake of a Twilight Zone episode from 1960 called 'Mirror Image,' starring Vera Miles. Rod Serling did a much better job of creating an effective spooky tale in 24 minutes than Sean Ellis did in 88 minutes with this tedious snooze. A short piece can be effective with a mysterious and unexplained ending, but in a feature film, there should be a bit more substance and the story should make sense. Sadly, substance and sense are two things missing from 'The Broken.' Yes, it has some moments, but they are not enough to justify your time. Some further observations: although this is clearly a contemporary story, not one character in the movie has a cellphone! And even though a car accident is the event that gets the story going, there is never any reference to an insurance company, to the person who was driving the other car, or to the police who would have been required to do a report. My advice: skip this bore and watch the original instead!


One of the most notorious of the banned 'Video Nasties' of the 1980s is also one of the most excessively over-hyped. 'Make Them Die Slowly' is about what you'd expect from an Umberto Lenzi-directed jungle potboilerinventive (yet poorly rendered) native torture techniques, some ridiculous 'social commentary' (yes, even sillier than 'Cannibal Holocaust'), and lots of guts being chewed. The film's exploitative violence, though, is often only shown in brief close-up, and never dwelt on for very long, which diminishes its effect (interpret that how you may). The dialog is Lenzi's usual silliness, as our male heroes show their affection for females by calling them 'tw@t' and the like. The cast of familiar faces (including Lorraine De Selle, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Zora Kerowa, and Robert Kerman) does their best in the face of the escalating idiocy (including a completely ludicrous 'castration preservation'), but cannot save this overworked, lousy effort.


For me this movie was powerful. I don't want to be a spoiler, but I had a friend years ago; we were like brothers. This movie brought back some vivid memories.

For some reason, I couldn't place my vote for this movie which would have been a 10. I kept getting a message like 'No votes have been placed....' And yet I saw in the stats that there were. Will try again tomorrow (Monday).

Minor flaws I overlooked. It was the relationships between the characters that got me. Beautifully acted and real situations. I've been in a couple of them.

A small gem of a movie. Just like 'Spring Forward' is another overlooked gem. I'm very glad movies like these are still being made; about relationships between people, well written, sensitively unfolded with first-class acting and direction. After all, isn't that what it's all about?


I ran across Yvette McClendon in a film at the Los Angeles Film Festival and thought she was a doll. After writing my review of her film there, I wanted to see more of her! Found this movie, it was pretty bad. Not her fault, she is only in the first few minutes where she is obviously being the person to pull you in to watch this bad movie. BAD directing. Scenes are looped over and over, with all the actresses. Amber Smith has a very bad breast job yet the other actresses looked pretty good. I really like Yvette but, this was obviously a bad choice of hers. I can't believe I rented this trash to look for her. I hope to find her other movies.


I should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art, because they are human beings, and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. That said, the simplistic notion that Ingmar Bergman's great 1968 film Shame (or Skammen) is merely an anti-war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex, and highly nuanced, film. Compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors, Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, Shame is seemingly a more classic film, in terms of narrative. But, the key word is seemingly, for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of Persona and the gaudy horror film homages of Hour Of The Wolf, it is one of the best films ever made about war- and not as an anti-war film, nor a pro-war film. As such, it has to rank with Wild Strawberries as one of his greatest films, as well as one of his best screenplays, if not the best.

Although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it, it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse. The country they live in is unnamed, as is the island they live on, although the film was made on Bergman's small island of Farö, just off the northern end of the Swedish Island of Göttland. It seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country, or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. This is all left deliberately hazy, as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. This is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen, as the credits roll. These include quotes from Hitler to Vietnam Era American military figures. After early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life, and then the coming of war, where even old men are conscripted, an aerial attack ravages the Rosenbergs' land, as enemy jets fly overhead, dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an Agent Orange like nature. One plane is hit, and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. Jan, who starts off the film as a sniveling coward, refuses to go and help, so Eva goes alone. Jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. It seems he is, indeed, part of the invading, or possibly rebel, force. A bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot, then advise the couple to leave their home, as the Invaders are near. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level, such as that of Bergman scholar Marc Gervais, who provides the film commentary on the DVD of the film. Like many other critics, he claims that Jacobi is a Quisling, who has collaborated with the Invaders. But, this is clearly and demonstrably wrong, for Jacobi is with the original Fascist government. As proof, first off, the Invaders are repelled after they invade the Rosenbergs' land and shoot their agitprop interview. We know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview, and words put into Eva's mouth, see the film as supposed proof of their treason, and Jacobi is clearly working with them, the Fascist Big Brother statists. Secondly, Jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps, for collaborating with the Invaders, and the Rosenbergs, again, are among those spared. Thirdly, in his seduction of Eva, Jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military, and clearly, if he was an Invader, he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. Also, rebel forces are not official armies, and do not grant official leave. Lastly, Filip is clearly with the rebels, or Invaders, of the Organization, and why would he have killed a colleague?

That Gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of Bergman's films. This is a wonderful and great film, and very high in the Berman canon, but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message, instead opting out for the cheap, lazy, and easy claim of its being merely anti-war, and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. And that, in the long run, is the real shame of Shame.


Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively 'uplifting' ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.

Brought back memories of 'Ordinary People', but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations.


I went to this movie expecting an artsy scary film. What I got was scare after scare. It's a horror film at it's core. It's not dull like other horror films where a haunted house just has ghosts and gore. This film doesn't even show you the majority of the deaths it shows the fear of the characters. I think one of the best things about the concept where it's not just the house thats haunted its whoever goes into the house. They become haunted no matter where they are. Office buildings, police stations, hotel rooms... etc. After reading some of the external reviews I am really surprised that critics didn't like this film. I am going to see it again this week and am excited about it.

I gave this film 10 stars because it did what a horror film should. It scared the s**t out of me.


I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****


I just purchased An Zhan (Running out of time) on DVD and it was an excellent film I must say. Not really action-packed, in terms of gun play, but definitely exciting and witty. I do not think I have seen Andy Lau in better form. And the editing on this film was very well executed. Go watch this now if you are a fan of Lau or HK thiller/action film!


This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen?

The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself.

Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.


Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors.


I jumped for joy to learn this show ended. This show's characters were extremely irritating. None of them had one singing redeeming quality. Damon Wayans is probably the most standable one. Kisha Campbell is... Kisha Campbell. She's just as annoying as she was in Martin.

The kids are all very annoying as well. The oldest is an idiot, the oldest girl is a stuck up brat, and the youngest is frustrating to listen to.

I guess I did like the intelligent little boy. But that's about it.

It did the world a favor by ending.

Let's pray that a Wayan never stars in another show... EVER.


this movie is a masterpiece a story of a young woman during the war , and it really happen , not exactly as the movie , but it is a great story , i was impress by this film ,the acting and the story where great i like this film because it is a true story it's Giff me a feeling that i was there and i feel sorry for the ca-rector that Maruschka Detmers is playing because who wants to end here life that way. i recommend that everybody have to see this film , special the young ones and ma by the learn something from this film. This film you can compare whit the movie soldier from orange or any real story that happened in the WW2.


Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen.

The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly.

Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better.

The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock!

What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.


Captain Corelli's Mandolin is one of Nicolas Cage's better films. He turns a fine performance as the title character. This is a romance set against the backdrop of a worn torn island. John Hurt's character gives his daughter, played beautifully by Penelope Cruz, some honest advice about love. This movie doesn't have the fault of being completely predictable. This movie also allows Cruz to turn in a performance as a strong woman who knows her own mind and heart. Once the film warms up beyond the opening sequence this film keep you focused on it. Again, Nicolas Cage did not disappoint.


I am not familiar with the producer's other works, but this movie is a piece of crap.

I never saw the MST3K version, but I can tell you, Mike and the Bots probably didn't save it.

I love a grade-z movie as much as the next bad movie fan, but this was almost unwatchable.

There was no credit for who did the voice of 'The Dark One'. Sounded a bit like Patrick Stewart at times.

A group of high school students who found a junk super-8 camera in the trash heap could make a better movie than that.


I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne


jim carrey can do anything. i thought this was going to be some dumb childish movie, and it TOTALLY was not. it was so incredibly funny for EVERYONE, adults & kids. i saw it once cause it was almost out of theatres, and now it's FINALLY coming out on DVD this tuesday and i'm way to excited, as you can see. you should definitely see it if you haven't already, it was so great!

Liz


Red spectacles

I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.

With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.

Thumbs down.


DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (Lucio Fulci - Italy 1972).

Definitely a prime candidate for the most insane movie title ever conceived and that's quite an achievement in giallo-land. Originally, the film was titled even more absurdly, 'Don't Torture Donald Duck', literally translated from its Italian title. A small Donald Duck figure features briefly as a toy, but hardly enough to render a title like this, but, apparently, it was changed in fear of legal ramifications by Disney. I railed quite a bit against Fulci's earlier LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971), but here all the right ingredients are present. A surprisingly effective mystery, a good cast and imaginatively shot against an unusual rural setting. Everything just clicks. I think it's justly hailed as one of the director's most accomplished achievements.

The story is set against the backdrop of a small mountain-side town in Sicily, where someone is killing young teenage boys. Among the suspects, the most obvious one is a young woman, Maciara (Florinda Balkan), a self-proclaimed witch who is seen suspiciously unearthing the skeleton of a baby and sticking pins into way effigies. Guiseppe, the village idiot is under suspicion as well, since he made a feeble attempt to profit from the disappearance of one of the boys and walked right into their trap. By the time a quick-witted newshound (Tomas Milian) arrives from Milan to cover the murders, he immediately begins to question the authorities' assumptions, when he meets two other potential suspects: Don Alberto, the local priest (Marc Porel) with a high-minded attitude, and Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a bored young woman from the city with a troubled past of drug offense, who also fancies having sexual relations with the young boys in town. Talk about your prime red herring.

Fulci nicely contrasts modernity and tradition with the newly constructed elevated highway meandering through the Sicilian hills, past old towns where life is still firmly rooted in tradition and superstition. One could debate about the film's political stance as The North versus The South, or as commentary on small-town virtues - society's conventions in general - that are all too often dangerously close to tipping over into moral disintegration, chaos and - ultimately - self-justice by the populace. The film has often been lambasted because of its anti-catholic tone, but it's hardly an important element here, except for obvious plot-related reasons, which would be giving away too much. It's actually rather tame compared to a film like Joël Seria's DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL (1971). Probably, the film's rather unflattering portrayal of small-town Sicilian values (when another boy is killed, the local populace are depicted as a retarded lynch-mob) might be cause for some offense in Sicily, but - considering Sicily's problematic relation with the rest of Italy - hardly problematic for other Italians, I would think. The film vanquished into obscurity far too quickly to have much impact anyway.

When talking Fulci, the amount of gore is usually a prime subject for discussion. Although eyes-gouging scenes are lacking, the film does contain two very graphic scenes. In the gross-out finale, the killer falls of a cliff, smashing his face along the rocks on the way down with gruesome results (albeit, not very realistic). And the chain-whipping sequence with Florinda Balkan in the graveyard shows Fulci's penchant for sadistic violence and typically, he's not holding back at graphically showing what most film-makers would merely hint at. Surely, one of the most horrifying scenes in Fulci's repertoire.

Above all, this is a taut, well-written, effective little mystery, nicely lensed by Fulci, with an impressive cast of genre-regulars like Barbara Bouchet, Marc Porel (not very convincing as a priest), Tomas Milian and Florinda Balkan (mouth-foamingly crazy as the town's witch).

Camera Obscura --- 8/10


Almost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.

Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.

After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.

Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.

This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.


So ya think you've seen every Mafia movie ever made! Here's one that nobody every heard of. It's a low-budget, quickie B-movie - shot in the swamps of Jersey. For us mob-movie fans, it had a little bit of everything - sex, violence, cursing, and wise guys acting like 'gafones'. While violence dominated the movie, I found myself laughing at some familiar scenes I've since seen on The Sopranos and Goodfellas. Look for a 1977 version of the 'Badabing Girls' in the beginning of the movie.

All our favorite mobster stereotypes were featured here. And, as for realism, 'fugettaboutit'! Joe Pesci was superb, portraying the classic wise-guy character like we seen him do so many times over the years. This was probably his first shot, and it was a gem. Pesci fans should run to the video store to check out this flick. You have to look carefully for it since it goes by different names. My copy called it 'The Family Enforcer'. Here it is known as 'The Death Collector'. But whatever name it goes under, it's should be called - A Winner.


They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from 'His Girl Friday' or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: 'I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism.' Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the 'American Tragedy'/Place in the Sun boating 'accident.' As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.

Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, 'I'd be very surprised if he killed one person.' This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class.


I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.


This is a really dark movie. Noir indeed. The title character is smallpox, brought into New York City unknowingly by Evelyn Keyes.

She is on one mission when she arrives and on a rougher one after she's spoken to her no longer innocent sister. But she herself is not intentionally a killer. This doesn't mean she doesn't kill. It doesn't mean her presence somewhere among eight million other people doesn't throw the city into turmoil.

Keyes is excellent. The supporting cast is very good too. There are several little-known people involved in this -- the director included. Don't be put off. It is a movie to be reckoned with! (And how nice to see a Columbia picture. Columbia and Republic turned out wonderful comedies and noirs; yet we hardly ever see them anymore.)


Jim Carrey is good as usual, and even though there are quite a few 'Jim Carrey moments', it's definitely not a 'Jim Carrey movie'.

It's targeted mostly at children, and I managed to enjoy it as such movie. It was promoted in Israel as another Jim Carrey movie, so those who expected a weird over the top comedy were disappointed.

The movie has nice moments and works well as a movie for kids. I can't say I LOVED this movie, but then again I'm not its target audience!


I think cheaters needs to be off the air and end the reality show once and for all i don't care what anyone says you can attack me or agree with me but its times like this that the show is just spewing out propaganda and the host of Cheaters Joey Greco is a little bastard who wants to think that showing people on camera is effective and unawares no it just will show disgusting he is also the wiretapping and following of people by 'cheaters spy's' is illegal and a federal offense we are living in a police state like the Soviet union and Nazi Germany rolled into one i am happy that there is poor reviews on this trash this needs to end soon or we are going to lose our liberties as a nation no wonder our country is going to hell its because of this and other filth shows i liked the older shows better from the 1950s-1980s i hope you all agree with me on that thank you infowarrior


almost every review of this movie I'd seen was pretty bad. It's not pretty bad, it's actually pretty good, though not great. The Judy Garland character could have gotten annoying, but she didn't allow it to. Somewhere along the line, i've become a fan of brooding, overbearing, overacting Van Heflin, at least in the early 40's. Judy's singing is great, but the film missed a great chance by not showing more of their relationship. I gave it a 7.


As romantic comedies go, this was a cute and winning one. I thought that the writing could have been stronger to build up the final connection a bit better, but that is not a huge tripping point. But, Amanda Detmer and Scott Wolf give nice performances and are as charming as ever. These are two of my favorite actors, and I was just glad to see them cast as romantic leads. I hope to see them cast in more projects soon.

Overall, this movie won't change your life, but is is sweet, warm and winning. Not a bad thing to be at all.


It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...

This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.

So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.

It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...

But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.


Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and 'the cat' plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.


I can't remember the last time a movie was so boring that I walked out. The Weatherman and The Island were both so bad that I thought about it but I even stayed to the end in those. This movie was incomprehensible, not funny and just went on and on and on. Like some other commentators, I wondered if parts were just French humor that I didn't get or if the characters were serious. I finally just gave up and tried napping because I didn't want to disturb my husband if he was enjoying it but he noticed and let me know that it was OKAY if I wanted to leave and out the door we went. He would like to know how it ended...if Denevue lived or died etc...(I don't even care).


I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that much.

Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates taste to most of the American (and world) markets.

It's a complicated subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael, whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and government officials. There is Aimé Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours. There is 'flying wine maker' Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many many more fascinating personalities in this documentary.

If you are a wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be ignored.

(8/10)


What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit.


There is one detail, which is not very common for Jackie Chan movies, but which is present here. It has some very tough and serious atmosphere about it while the funny elements are present too. Jackie is menacing and psychotic here. He is not a hero who is attacked and only then fights back (in a usual laid-back pattern), but he is the one who can go and start the tumult. His manner of hitting that evil guy in the glasses is amazing. Every time it goes 'crack!'. I also especially enjoy the scene when Jackie goes to the pub and thrashes the villains who had fronted on his girlfriend. It's one of the best blitzkriegs put on screen. Besides, the whole scene is shot with the background of some action character painted on the wall (it also looks like a poster of 'rabochiy' from our Soviet era) and some lines in Russian on the left (I noticed that quite accidentally). That looks terrific (and nostalgic for Russian people). I also like when the windows are being smashed in the movies. Here there's a lot of this stuff. It's quite amazing watching the characters falling/jumping/running/driving through all manner of panes.

All three movies are great. I had been preparing myself to see the down-slide of the quality but I saw a perfect trilogy with sense and incredible stunts (and not only Jackie Chan's character appears in all three movies - that's also excellent and keeps continuity up).

I would like to describe each movie just in a few words: No.1 - great (in all aspects - it is one gripping story from the very beginning to the very end) and funny (many scenes are ridiculous); No.2 - raging (Jackie is really *beep* off here) and painful (Jackie gets tortured); No.3 - unbelievable (the woman that fights alongside with Jackie is incredible) and bombastic (should I mention a lot of guns and explosions?).

As to the rest - much has been mentioned by the others.

It's a trilogy that can be watched over and over again (at least by me). Its place is in top 10 among action/comedy jewels. Finally it's been released in Russia on DVD (the 2nd film has the best options - the Chinese/Russian soundtracks and English/Russian subtitles).

Solid 10 out of 10. Thank you for attention.


I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.

The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.

It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10


What I liked best about this flick was the chance to see Joan Woodbury, who awe-struck me as one of the several beauties in the Charles Boyer classic 'Algiers', in a leading role. She does well as Rita, an orphan who rises to make good as a lady crime boss. Her ascent to the top reminds me of Joan Crawford's characters, e.g. Mildred Pierce, who realize their ambitions by fierce determination and willpower. If you're looking for a film noir classic, better look elsewhere. At several points, it's difficult to know where this story is going. I first got the impression that it was going to encompass Rita's plot for revenge against the father and son who tricked her into taking the rap for a drunk driving death perpetrated by the playboy son. But payback time ended up being only a minor point, and a springboard to the somewhat confusing second part of the film, where Rita becomes increasingly involved in city corruption. Anyway, it's only 72 minutes, so a second viewing should clear up any haziness. My copy is from a Platinum box set called 'Mobster Movies'. The picture quality is good, but the soundtrack sucks, constantly skipping fragments of dialog. There are eight films in the $5.50 box, making each movie a fair 69 cents. Look for Anne Archer's father, John Archer, as Rita's childhood friend Bob. Alan Ladd doesn't get much screen time. It's definitely Joan Woodbury's picture.


Truly awful film made by cinematographer-turned-director Ted Tetzlaff. Decent enough looking film but for a time-bomb movie totally devoid of any tension whatsoever. Ford, as someone put it here, sleepwalks though this one with his characteristic smirk. There are some details thrown around- Canadian ex-army or RAF, defused bombs in the war, his wife is leaving him- but none of these back stories add up to much. The bomber himself is a complete mystery. Why is he trying to blow up this shipment of mines? For that matter, what time period are we talking about here? WWII or postwar?? I assumed the latter which makes bomber's motive even more salient. Generally, though, just a horrible film. There are plenty of good time-bomb flicks to skip this one. Watch any episode of 'Danger UXB' for a more exciting time, at about the same running time.


Nominated for the oscar 'worst script ever' in my opinion. There's no decent story, rediculous acting, VERY lousy humor. By every means possible, if you have little self respect please don't waste your time seeing this movie. Although u can see the actors CAN act, it leaves you dumber after watching it. Precious braincells are being killed watching this crap...

i warned u

DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE


The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's 'going mad'. Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.

This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film.


Gwoemul (The Host) - Due to pollution in the Han river a mutated beast goes on the rampage. The youngest member of the Park family is snatched by the beast, and it is up to the rest of her family to find her, before she becomes the beast's latest meal.

Firstly, I love monster movies: Mutated bears, over-sized alligators, packs of ravening Komodo dragons, the whole lot. Creature features are my favourite kind of Horror film. So, I really wanted to like The Host, but it wasn't to be.

There were three major problems with it:

The first can be seen with a quick look at it's IMDb page

Genre: Action / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller

Too many damned genres. It took itself too seriously to be a comedy, and yet was too light hearted to have any real message (though it did seem to be trying to make some kind of statement. Anti-pollution, anti-American or anti-government). The drama was misplaced and mixed in a confusing mish-mash with all the other styles.

Secondly, after the initial monster attack nothing happens for almost the entire film. The central family wander about looking for one of their own while the governments of Korea and America, apparently, do nothing. And that's it, they just wander about, occasionally hitting one another, presumably for a bit of comedy relief. This lack of action made my attention wander, and apparently it did the same for the director, as whole plot threads go unresolved (a mystery plague invented by the evil Americans is completely forgotten about, and is never resolved).

And lastly, the film is clumsily political. It paints the Americans as being stupid and evil, but gives us no American characters with any more depth than a cartoon villain. The opening scene has the most obvious stupid American vs wise Korean moment. With a Korean morgue assistant asking his boss, the coroner, not to pour chemicals into the Han river. The American coroner all but cackles maniacally as he orders the assistant to carry on. As well as being racist, it's lazy film-making and there is no excuse for that.

On the plus side, the monster is good, kind of a mix of The Relic and Deep Rising. Some of the movement effects are quite cool, and the initial monster chase through the park is a lot of fun. There are also some nice shots in the film. Some of which remind me, strangely, of the way Firefly was filmed (shuddering cameras, out of focus shots etc).There is also a nice scene at the end, where the hero and a little boy he has saved are sitting in the family's mobile food stall. It's night-time and snow is falling, the street-lamp is giving out a cold light, but the food stall has a warm glow coming from it.

Overall, I was really disappointed by this film. I'd been looking forward to a decent creature flick, and instead I get some pseudo-political,horror-comedy lite. Looking at the comments on IMDb I can't help but think that if this had been a US production it would have been slated. Just 'cause it's a foreign flick doesn't mean it's any good. There have been some great movies out of Korea in recent years (The vengeance trilogy and Brotherhood, for example), but this certainly isn't one of them.

For once I'm in favour of a remake. Tighten up the directing, improve the scripting and this could have been a nice film. As it is, it's not worth a couple of hours of anyone's time.


Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like 'cool' and too many others to keep track of. 'The sistahs are in tha house'!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.

The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.

It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.

The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.


I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.

The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.

As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.

Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.


I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.

I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's 'Nixon' comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.

The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.

They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.

Guess I should read the book...

Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.

I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.


LA ANTENA (Esteban Sapir - Argentina 2005).

A completely unique take on silent cinema in this fairy-tale like story by Esteban Sapir, beautifully shot in black-and-white and practically without dialog, 'La Antena' is a feast for the eye and a must for lovers of German expressionist cinema, with most of the nods to the works of Fritz Lang and Friedrich Murnau.

'The City without a Voice', 'La Ciudad sin Voz', is ruled by Mr. TV. He has taken the inhabitants voices and is in total control of all spoken words and images, forcing everyone to eat his own brand of TV-food. Mr TV is not just a monopolist, he is the personification of evil and totalitarianism, even the swastika appears as a symbol a number of times. He secretly works on a hypnotizing device to control all the citizens minds through his television broadcasts. For this purpose, he kidnaps the only one left with The Voice, a beautiful singer, but a TV repairman witnesses the kidnapping and flees to an old TV antenna in the mountains in order to halt Mr. TV's evil plans.

The production design is stunning with beautiful sets and imagery. Although shot primarily with the basic language of silent cinema, Esteban Sapir also adds a number of fresh techniques of his own, like a combination of typographic and animation techniques. Everyone talks with each other through text balloons (usually floating near their mouths), the louder they talk, the larger the characters. The texts themselves can be pushed away or crushed. In the opening sequence, we see a book, titled 'La Antena', that opens and a city of paper rises from the pages. There are hardly any references to Argentina. It's constantly snowing, which gives the film a very un-Argeninian feel, while the surreal setting suggests any large city in the Northen hemisphere, with only some of the songs revealing the film's Argentinian background.

The pace is swift and there is so much happening on screen, it's hard to keep track of the film's surreal narrative. Not only breathtakingly beautiful to look at, we're also given a few messages about media monopolies, corruption and totalitarianism, but they are breezily packaged. One of the most original films I've seen in years. A delight.

The film was shown as the opening film at the IFF Rotterdam 2007.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10


If this movie had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.

	The opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.

	The movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.

	Another senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.

	The scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.


This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good. Explored as a psychological study by a noted psychologist (Lindsay Crouse), it slowly pulls her into his world with the usual nasty consequences. The cast includes a number of the players found is several of Mamet's films (Steven Goldstein, Jack Wallace, Ricky Jay, Andy Potok, Allen Soule, William H. Macy), and they do their usual good job. I loved Lindsay Crouse in this film, and have often wondered why she didn't become a more noted player than she has become. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!

The movie proceeds at a slow pace, with flat dialog, yet it maintains a level of tension throughout which logically leads to the bang-up ending. You'd expect a real let down at the ending, but I found it uplifting and satisfying. I love this movie!


An awful travesty of the Greek resistance. Senorita Cruz badly miscast as a Cephalonian Greek girl (there are plenty of attractive good English speaking Greek actresses so why pick a Spanish lady for one of the leading roles and with an English actor as her father, supposedly a Greek doctor!? Many of the supporting cast are well known actors and actresses from Greek theatre and TV series. The only foreign actor, to my knowledge, who has successfully portrayed a Greek was Anthony Quinn (as the Macedonian lignite miner Zorba in Zorba the Greek, as the plutocratic shipowner in the Greek Tycoon,and as a Greek colonel in the Guns of Navarone.

There is some historical truth reflected in the film. People who remember the Italian occupation of the Ionian Islands agree that the Italians were not harsh, unlike the Germans who succeeded them. Also Mussolini's forces, as hinted in the movie, had been defeated by the Greek army in the Albanian campaign. After the Germans intervened in the Balkans they allowed the Italian military to occupy certain parts of Greece, so the refusal of the local government to surrender to Italian forces, rather than to the Germans. as portrayed in the film is quite plausible, although I am not certain this actually happened.


This romantic comedy isn't too bad. There are some funny things happening here and there, and there are some rather memorable characters in it.

The acting, however, is amateurish (with the exception of the banker). While some scenes are great fun, others are simply embarrassing. In particular, I found the 'romantic' part of the story poor.

All in all, I guess it's worth seeing if you like football and romantic comedies. It's not really a bad movie, and the ending did feel quite good. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Fair enough if you have an hour and a quarter to kill.


This movie doesn't even have the saving grace of being so bad that its good. It is truly appalling. Its closer to a tongue-in-cheek parody than a disaster movie, but alas they were serious. Made for TV, but not worthy of even that. It contains every cliché and cheesy plot moment you can imagine. Oh will he save the town from the flood? Will his wife admit that she still loves him? Will they escape before the flood drowns them? I cant explain how bad this is. Awful predictable plot that makes you wince it is so cheesy. Bad Effects (although to be fair I have seen worse super-imposed bubbling water). Bad script. Woeful acting. Hideous. So bad in fact that you probably should get drunk and watch it.


Talk about a blast opening, 'Trampa Infernal' has the coolest opening credits ever! Guided by musical tones that are perhaps slightly inspired by the legendary 'Friday the 13th' theme (Tsh-Tsh-Tsh-Ha-Ha-Ha), the names of the lead players appear on screen split up in giant syllables. Promising intro of a totally obscure Mexican slasher/backwoods survival thriller and it only becomes cooler with every minute that passes. Two extremely competitive and testosterone-overloaded paintball enemies challenge each other to the ultimate showdown in a sleazy bar. According to a newspaper article, there's a savage bear loose in the nearby woods and it already killed multiple of the hunters that tried to catch it. The challenge includes that whoever kills the bear will be declared the ultimate macho hero with the biggest set of balls. Upon arrival, however, it quickly becomes obvious they're not up against a bear but a bewildered and utterly maniacal war veteran with quite an arsenal of weapons in his hideout and numerous combat tricks up his sleeve. After a whole decade of tame and derivative American slashers, this early 90's Mexican effort looks and feels very refreshing and vivid. The formula is simplistic but efficient, the lead characters are plausible enough and the building up towards the confrontations with the sadist killer is reasonably suspenseful. The maniac must have been a fan of Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, as he also uses a self-made glove with sharp knives attached to it and a white mask to cover his face. The murders are pleasingly nasty and barbaric, which I was really hoping for since the awesome aforementioned opening sequences, and waste a whole lot of gratuitous blood. The forestry setting and particularly the camouflaged booby traps are joyously spectacular. 'Trampa Internal' is a Mexican slasher/survival sleeper hit that comes warmly recommended to the fans of the genre.


I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.


Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for 'MST3K'; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.

But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This 'Hamlet' is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful.


It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle.

Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie 'Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus' and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed 'The Indian Runner'.

In 'The Evil That Men Do', however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five 'Death Wish' flicks.

Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!!

Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that 'The Evil That Men Do' has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?

No stars. Watch 'Death Wish' instead. At least IT was topical.


I voted this a 10 out of 10 simply because it is the best animated story I have been able to see in quite some time. The animation is stunning. The artwork behind each and every landscape was beautiful. From the colors to the lighting to the not standard fare of artistry. I was amazed. Moving beyond the beauty on the screen, you are immersed in a storyline that is at once timeless and at the same turn fresh. Character development is brief yet these touchstone moments are exactly what is needed to clue the viewer in to what and why and how the character has come to where they stand. I'm impressed with the entire affair and think this is a must see for the entire family.


Walking with Cavemen, hosted by Alec Baldwin, is a look back at all the hominid (that's us!) species of the past 5 million years: who they were, what they were like, and how they died out. Along with being a very interesting scientific look at the information we have on these species, Walking with Cavemen also examines what it is that makes us human. I waited several weeks to watch this, and I was not disappointed.


I watched fantabulosa! because over the last few years Michael Sheen has become one of my favourite actors, and if you haven't seen him in anything before firstly shame on you, and secondly get your hands on a copy of either Heartlands or Dirty Filthy Love. This production did not disappoint - Michael Sheen transformed himself almost magically into Kenneth Williams, and gave a performance that was as tragically moving as it was skillful. Not to take anything away from the other performances but like Kenneth, Michael truly stole the show. I don't know how he does it, but every performance I have seen Michael give he seems to metamorphose until the character he plays is truly, utterly believable, and no matter how hard I try I cannot fault him. Must go get my tea, enjoy!


There have been many documentaries that I have seen in which it appeared that the law was on the wrong side of the fence - The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost come to mind first and foremost. But this is the first film that had me seething with anger after I saw it. It seems blatantly clear to me from the evidence presented in this film that what happened at Waco was at the very least an unprofessional and sloppy mess on the part of the FBI and AFI, and at the very worst an act of murder. Like most people, when the siege at Waco was occurring I assumed that David Koresh was a completely evil madman who was leading a violent cult. After seeing this, I think that Koresh was more likely a slightly unbalanced and confused guy who inadvertently caught the attention of the U.S. government through his eccentric actions. Sure, there were lots of weapons at the Branch Davidian compound. But none of it was illegal. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the video footage of the people inside the compound, all of them seeming to be very nice and harmless. And it was angering to see the callous testimony of the men in charge of the government forces on the Waco site, the clueless testimony of Janet Reno, and the partisan defense of the attack on Waco, a defense led by a few of the committee Democrats. Standing out most in my mind was NY representative and current U.S. senator from NY Charles Schumer. I voted for the man when I lived in NY state - I'm a Democrat, pretty left-leaning too. After seeing his actions on this committee, I wish I could go back in time and vote for D'Amato instead! For anyone remotely interested in the government, this is a very crucial film, a must see. I even think this should be shown in classes - it's that important.


Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ...


I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidô, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only.


One of the dumbest movies in the history of cinema. Wait, I take that back-- this movie can't be included in any category related to 'cinema'; it belongs in categories like 'waste', turds, or similar categories. Ironically, it's even _about_ two garbagemen. The movie is 'Men At Work', a lightweight crime comedy starring the Estevez (Sheen) brothers from 1990. Setting aside the asinine and implausible plot line, bad acting, bad dialogue, poorly executed stunts and slapstick, continuity errors, and high rate of no-name actors never to be seen again, all in all it was a pretty bad movie anyway (at its core, I mean). It was the kind of movie that might be good for one thing: you can watch it about 200 times, learn every line, and in a campy kind of way repeat them back and forth in public with your *wasted* friends, thus securing your status as the biggest dorks in your tenth grade class.

To make matters worse, I actually submitted an IMDb trivia entry (along with this bad review) to the movie's IMDb web page, if only because I spotted a silly little punk music joke that apparently nobody else spotted yet(about the Butthole Surfer statue). I'm so conflicted about why I should even *waste* my time submitting what looks like a supportive trivia note, when what I really want to do is blow up Emilio's acting career (no, wait, he's already done that himself. Thanks, dude!) I'm so glad I *wasted* only time on this, not real money. For that matter, can I maybe have at least one tenth of their budget? Anyone other than this director (Emilio) could have made two or three much better movies with just what they spent blowing up cars, carefully placing bikini-clad bimbos in the background, and beating up useless extras (henchmen) in haz-mat suits. I'd mention Emilio's writing credit, but it would be a stretch to call this screenplay 'writing' -- it's more like crayon-scrawled cartoon ideas. And Charlie Sheen, if you're reading this, I assume M.A.W. must have been made during the part of your career in which you were a coked-up, hooker-loving Hollywood brat who had not grown up yet. (Oops! Sorry, I guess that part of your life isn't over yet. Get well soon, you 'half a man'. Such a promising talent, so *wasted* oh look, there's that word again.)


I have always been a fan of this largely unseen filming of the Gershwin opera, since I last saw it in 1959. As many of you know, it has been unavailable on video or DVD; in fact, the Gershwin family sought to destroy all existing prints.

Yet, for some reason--hopefully signaling an end to its opposition, the Gershwin family recently approved the showing of a collector's print at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens. .

Well, the wide-screen, Technicolor print was excellent! (Not perfect, but excellent.) The sound was outstanding, in road-show quality stereo. The folks who saw this in its original release wouldn't have seen a much better copy. (The program notes include the original Variety review, which cautions that people might balk at the steep limited-release ticket price of $3.50!)

And, as much as I loved it originally, PORGY AND BESS was better than I remembered it. It's just wonderful. Sidney Poitier as Porgy was at the point where his career was just beginning to catch fire, and his charisma shines through. Dorothy Dandridge as Bess is spectacularly beautiful. Brock Peters as Crown is aggressively masculine. Pearl Bailey as Maria provides a few comic moments, although her role is small. And Sammy Davis, Jr., as Sporting Life, steals every scene he's in; he's especially riveting in his two big numbers: 'It Ain't Necessarily So' and 'There's a Boat that's Leavin' Soon for New York.' (That last one won applause in the screening I saw.)

PORGY AND BESS is set-bound, but it really doesn't matter when the set is as gorgeous as this one. The costumes are also outstanding.

Sidney and Dorothy's singing voices are dubbed in, but they are dubbed in extremely well. The exquisite 'Summertime' is sung by Clara, played by a young Diahann Carroll; her singing also is dubbed. (Actually, only Pearl and Sammy do their own vocalizing.)

The music is sublime, of course, but what really struck me this time was how much emotion Preminger got out of the story. People were actually sniffling in the audience a number of times--once when Bess sings that beautiful 'I Loves You Porgy.' And I got a kick out of the audience actually laughing out loud at the lines in 'It Ain't Necessarily So.' Could it be they had never heard this song before-- or never really listened to it? I believe that much of the emotional impact of this film is due to Poiter and Dandridge's performances--you root for their love to win out.

A minor quibble with the 136 minute running time--one or two slow spot, and a stereotypical, Amos-n-Andy kind of scene about Bess seeing a shyster lawyer to get a divorce from Crown, even though she's not even married to him. (I would have cut that.) And the beginning is a little confusing--both title characters are introduced awkwardly--they're part of the movie before you realize who they are.

And I don't think Preminger used a single close-up in the entire movie. It all seems to be shot in 3/4, which I'm guessing was his way of working with the wide screen.

PORGY AND BESS has always been a cult film for those of us who saw it, for those of us who loved the soundtrack, and for some of us who have only heard about it. Let's hope they find a way to re-release this, and put it out on DVD. It deserves the widest audience possible.