In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase 'nonfiction novel' to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs.

Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.

All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: 'Ho hum, who cares?'

See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.

Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.

I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an


This is a movie that should have been a mini-series as it tries to get too much information in too small a space. The whole story is constantly being bombarded with sub-plots, character introduction and meaningless pieces information that go nowhere. There is a underlying plot where boy meets a girl, she has doubts but gets married anyhow and then her doubts surface and she goes to see if they are real. They turn out not to be but her husband won't believe that she was not unfaithful and her almost boyfriend doesn't want her as she was not unfaithful to her husband. With that said there are no less than 1000 sub-plots and character introductions that make this plot almost incomprehensible. In the first 15 minutes you are inundated with so many things and situations that you just stop caring. You don't care about any of the confused and screwed up cast that drifts in and out of the story like vultures feeding on a corpse. Each one comes in and takes some interest away from the viewer. After a half-hour, and completely disinterested, I stayed and watched the remaining two and a half hours out of pure morbid curiosity. I couldn't imagine where it was going but like staring at a fire I just couldn't get up and turn it off. The production values are superb but the resulting movie is a waste of time; wash your socks instead.


i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.

the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.


As you may know, the subject here was to ask eleven directors from all over the world to make each a short movie of 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. We have here : - Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) : what afghan refugee kids can understand to the towers collapsing ? Well, nothing. A great lesson. - Claude Lelouch (France) : a weak plot with a great cinematography... Just imagine a deaf woman living by the WTC who sees without understanding it that her dog barks... Well just see it. - Youssef Chahine (Egypt) : the greatest oriental movie maker has compassion... For everyone : for an us soldier who died ten years ago, for the people in the Wtc but also for a palestinian suicide-terrorist. Maybe the less tender movie towards the us. - Danis Tanovic (bosnia hrzgovia) : good images, makes us travel, for sure... Not a very good plot. Idrissa Oudraogo (Burkina Faso) : from one of the poorest country in the world, a tender and funny story about five boys who want to capture Osama Bin Laden... And they could have done it but nobody believes them when they tell they know where he is. Ken Loach (uk) : September 11, 1973, The Chile entered in a twenty-years long bloody dictature. Thousands of death, tortures : all that was offered to Chile by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, and knowing this changes very much your point of view ! I guess that is because of that particular short that no american movie distribution company accepted to release the movie in us theaters ! Loach forgot to point that 1973 is also the year when the WTC was built ! - Alejandro Gonzalez inarritu (Mexico) : impressing images that we all know too well, and a lot of black screens. I didn't get this one very much, it is more an artist video (to show in an exhibition) than a movie. - Amos Gitaï (Israël) : an absurd ballet of policemen, journalists, etc., around a burning car in Jerusalem. Very well done. - Mira Nair (India) : about the anti-islamic feeling that followed september the 11th. Very good actualy. - Sean Penn (us) : a funny little story that reminds us a fact usualy forgotten, the WTC did have a huge shadow, and some places now have a daylight they never had. - Shohei Imamura (Japan) : a different one. Here there is not even one word about the WTC, and the action takes place at the end of WWII. It has only one message : no war is holy. This short movie gives very deep feelings, but the director aparently would have done better with more than 11 minutes. --- so --- A great movie, a great attempt to take the world's temperature. I love it.


The female cast of this movie is terrific: you've got Linda Blair (maturing nicely), Julie Strain (who doesn't get too many speaking lines - that's a good thing), Rochelle Swanson (equally convincing as a sweet innocent girl or as an evil possessed girl), Toni Naples, and the most beautiful of them all IMO, the simply stunning Kristina Ducati (how the goofy male lead, Larry Poindexter, deserved to get sexually involved with any of these women remains a mystery). However, beyond the chance to watch these beautiful and in some cases talented women, the movie has little to offer. The plot is disjointed and doesn't really get going until the last 15 minutes or so; and when Wynorski finally manages to create some suspense, a ludicrous 'twist' ending comes and ruins everything. (*1/2)


but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.


Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).

*******Possible Spoilers********

The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.

I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.

I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.


Doug McClure has starred in a few of these British produced genre adventures and this one has got to be the worst of the lot . I know THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT has its critics but please at least that movie featured location filming and relatively good production values . That's the problem with this movie - The production values go way beyond ' So bad they're good ' affectionate territory and become ' so bad I think I'll go and see what's on the other channels '

One case in point is the first scene featuring the intrepid Cushing and McClure encountering a monster . It's painfully obvious the monster is an average sized man dressed up as a rubber monster being made to look over twenty foot tall via overblown back projection . It becomes even more painfully obvious that our heroes are trying to escape the monster by running on the spot . Have I mentioned that this is one of the more convincing set pieces ? No really this looks like it was filmed in somebody's living room with the spare change left over from that year's DOCTOR WHO budget . Even former DOCTOR WHO Peter Cushing is bland and what should have been an amusing line ' You can't mesmerise me - I'm British ' is delivered in a very flat way ( A very similar line is spoken by Cushing in HORROR EXPRESS ) in a script devoid of characterisation , plotting and memorable dialogue . It's not just the fact that the dialogue is unmemorable it's also infrequent and rare since the monsters don't speak . Wouldn't it have been better having the chief bad guys humanoids like in WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS so that they could explain the plot . Does anyone here know what the plot actually is ?

A very tedious British movie that even the twin talents of Caroline Munro can not save . The whole mood of the movie is summed up by the final sequence featuring two keystone cops


let's face it, you know what to expect when you tune into a post 1990 Corey Feldman film, there are probably boobs, guns and cars. saying that, there is more to this movie than just naked ladies (i'm sorry to say), cos it's mainly people getting themselves killed in a variety of unusual, and as the name suggests, often 'mystical' ways. I love crappy horror, and i love this film. If you don't, you probably wont. but i think it's worth most people giving it a go, it's not so crappy that it'll ruin your weekend or anything. All in all, if its mindless good fun, a bit of corpse loving, and an 80's childhood superstar your in the mood for, then you've come to the right place. its a cracker!!!!


Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie!


When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.

Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:

1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period?

2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.

3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.

4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.

5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.

6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.

Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.


I seriously can't believe Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov, two people I LOVE, signed on to produce this crap. Tim Burton is a brilliant director, but to be honest I've been losing interest in him for a while since his last few movies were either remakes or adaptations. He did produce the brilliant 'Nightmare Before Christmas', which is one I've watched multiple times, and directed movies like 'Beetlejuice' and 'Sleepy Hollow', which are awesome films. Bekmambetov directed 3 films that I LOVE: Night Watch, Day Watch, and Wanted. I've only seen those three of his, but they prove he's an awesome director.

Those two people producing one of the many reasons I was excited to see 9. So today I went to go see it at the theatre. I was so excited to finally have seen it. I had waited 7 months for the movie to come out.

This movie is the first time I've walked out of a Tim Burton-related movie and said 'I enjoyed almost NONE of that'. I felt heartbroken to even have felt that way. I mean, with him and Bekmambetov at the production helm you'd have expected this movie to be a good watch. Right now I still can't get over how let down I was by this movie. I hadn't even heard of the original short film before seeing it but now, I can successfully say that this movie should have remained a short movie. Hell, Neil Blomkamp made an AWESOME full length remake of Alive in Joburg entitled District 9, what was so hard to get right about 9??? I really wanted to think this movie was awesome. I really did. But no, it failed on so many levels.

The plot was extremely confusing and disjointed. I had no idea what was going on, let alone what it was about. Basically it's about a bunch of rag doll robots trying to save the earth. Well, OK, that's what I got from it. But the writing here is extremely poor. The whole film jumps around like a 6 year old with A.D.D. telling a story. There's this big, giant clanky monster robot that 9 awakens, causing destruction and stuff. That's the main villain. However, what else is wrong with this movie is that EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. There were too many monster robots, most of which have no logical explanation behind them. They have 0 development whatsoever. I mean, that flying pterodactyl like monster just rips out of nowhere, we have no idea where it comes out of and Acker just expects us to know what it is. What was even more retarded was that snake-like creature with the strobing eyes that hypnotize. I dare you to give that description to someone else out loud and expect them not to laugh. All of the 3 people I told about it burst out laughing. Oh and it wraps victims up and sews them inside it. I'M. NOT. KIDDING.

The twist in Act III is the most retarded aspect of the whole movie. So basically 9 goes back to the room he woke up in, finds this box with a hologram from the scientist in it for 9, and he tells him that the big scary machine robot was designed to bring robot life to earth, but then evil humans use it for war, and it was supposed to help protect the earth, but then the scientist gave his life to 9 so that it could help protect the world with it. And HE ONLY MENTIONS GIVING HIS LIFE TO 9. But what about the other robots? WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEM???????? This is the perfect example of poor, rushed writing. There's only one of the life taking device thingy that exists so how did the other 8 get life given to them??????? The characters are not likable at all either. They risk their lives for no reason at all. The only good character is 7. 6 annoyed me with his 'GO BACK TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!' ramblings, 1 is an overpowering idiot, 2 we don't know ANYTHING about, 5 kept annoying me with his 'Are you sure...' or 'Can I stay here instead...?' questions. And that ending? UGH. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the ending was a huge WTF moment.

There's nothing redeeming about this turd except for its beautiful animation. Everything looks realistic and beautiful, I love the gloomy and depressing look of everything. However, beauty can't save a good movie.

While it's true that this movie is very pretty looking, pretty is as pretty does, and 9 does squat. I'm sure Burton fans will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie without a doubt, in fact with his and Bekmambetov's names being thrown around the promos, people will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie. I know I may be making a big deal out of nothing, but watching this movie made me realize how much I hate movies with unlikeable characters, nonexistent plot and just pure style over content. And this movie is one of those movies.


Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.

Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful.


I nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.

The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his 'one true love', repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.

In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a 'three-second sexual intercourse session' with him in a back alley.

It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm!

All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.

There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.

None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.

Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!

I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an 'independent film', movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to 'use your imagination'.

For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.

My Rating - 2 out of 10


This is indeed a spectacularly bad film, but it is the rare kind of badness that is endlessly, jaw-droppingly entertaining! I want to add to the other comments on this film.

The 'rock band' on the plane look like three skinny drunks from casual labor wearing bad wigs.

Watch for the severe continuity problem with the kid's stuffed tiger: it turns into a lion, a leopard and back again; it's filthy or clean depending on the shot.

*SPOILER! The stuffed tiger turns into a real animal to save the kid (and the writers)!

The sight of little Jimmy floating down the Amazon in a coffin, clutching his stuffed tiger and squalling away will stick permanently in your memory.

Listen for one of the most inept sound effects ever: late in the story when the priest is setting out to find Jimmy, the guide demands his monk's robes as payment-the priest drops on one knee in a moment of resigned contemplation and there is the sound of a bell, not the deep 'BONNNNG' of a church bell, but the 'ding' of a bell from a boxing match!

This is an absolute hoot to watch.


'Pandemonium' is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. 'Airplane', 'The Naked Gun' trilogy, 'Blazing Saddles', 'High Anxiety', and 'Spaceballs' are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. 'Pandemonium' is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, 'Scream' had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?

*1/2 (out of four)


This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said 'the meek shall inherit the earth.' This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, 'Once upon a time...' to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!!


I read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie.


And unfortunately, so did I. ANY movie that relies on a bad pun as its tagline or its title should be relegated to the $2.00 bin, but we decided to try a second consecutive bad movie for movie night. We had a winner in 'House of the Dead'--go with that one if you want a laughable flick.

Some witch jumped into the water after being set on fire by Mr. Miner. Some guy took a dump in the woods. And that same guy grabbed a new girlfriend right in front of his old one. I don't remember much else. The last third of the movie was utterly insipid, and we were all waiting in agony until the end.


I logged on here right after watching this movie, feeling that it was so awful that at least its reviews might be entertaining. But all you miscreants appear to kind of like it. And so, since I want the job done right...

From the opening shot, the movie establishes its contempt for the audience's attention span by showing an entirely unremarkable picture of an irrelevant bridge for a long, long time. Then it goes to some slow-motion skateboarding, which is at least a little bit cool, but then offsets that glimmer of excitement by overlaying the most repellent soundtrack song I've ever heard. Some girl screeching in whispery French over what sounds like sheets of plywood banging together. Whoever decided that needed to be there has never ridden a skateboard, I guarantee it. It seemed to be there to test the limits of the audience's patience.

From there, the movie is about 50 per cent slow motion. You know what's worse than a gratuitous slow-motion shot? A gratuitous slow motion shot of *nothing happening.* Here's a guy walking along a path. Here's a guy sitting. Here's a guy looking around. Here's a guy looking at another guy. After a while I started watching the movie at double speed, bringing it back down whenever people appeared on screen engaging in actual dialog, which was rare. Once, astonishingly, I slowed the movie to find out what a girl was saying, only to find that the camera was showing her talking, but the sound was another horrible, horrible song and her actual voice was not audible.

This reminds me of some great advice I heard once about writing -- if you don't have anything to say, don't use fancy tricks to pretend as though you do. Get back to work and think of something to say. All these camera tricks, like the slow motion and weird lighting and lenses and freaky music, is what the absence of content looks and sounds like. A lot of people have apparently bought it, and perceive emotional gravity and deep meaning, but I think they are projecting this onto a movie that did not do any of the work involved in creating it.


I must admit I'm a little surprised and disappointed at some of the very negative comments this film seems to provoke. I think its a great horror/sci fi film. Colonel Steve West (Alex Rebar) returns to Earth after an historical space flight to Saturn. While in space he contracted some bizarre and unknown disease. He wakes up in a hospital bed, he looks in a mirror and before his very eyes his face is melting! Escaping the hospitals supervision, he hides out in some local woods surrounding a small town. Unfortunately he starts to develop a rapidly growing hunger that can only be satisfied by eating other people. He must feed on human flesh and drink the blood of others to survive! Stalking human prey he begins his reign of terror! Its up to his old friend Dr Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning) to find him and try and help him. He has to work alone as his boss General Perry (Myron Healey) wants it kept ultra quiet. Nelson can't even tell his wife Judy (Ann Sweeny). However, Sheriff Blake (Micheal Alldredge) becomes suspicious as General Perry turns up just as some of the local townspeople start turning up half eaten. I don't really understand why this film gets such negative reviews, what do people expect? Anyway, I really like this film. The star of the film are unquestionably Rick Bakers Special Make-up and gore effects which for the most part are excellent, and the fact their all prosthetic effects and no rubbish horrible CGI makes them even better. Writer and Director William Sachs isn't afraid to use them either, we get some nice long lingering close up shots of the incredible melting man and they hold up very well, even now. Photography, music and direction are a little bit dull, but professional enough. The script manages to create some sympathy for the the monster, shots of him looking longingly into Ted Nelsons house, or when he sees his own reflection in some water and reacts violently. The ending, set in a large factory of some sort, is pretty downbeat so don't expect any happy ending. Which surprised me. Also, the script doesn't really do anything with the premise, he just walks around melting and killing, with his friend trying to stop him, maybe a bit too simple. Personally I think the worst bit of the film is near the start when the fat nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion, her screams are also portrayed in slow motion too, it looks and sounds totally ridiculous! You need to see it to believe it! I like this film a lot and recommend it to 70's and 80's horror/sci fi fans. A bit of a favourite of mine.


**SPOILERS** Shocking yet true story of the horror that befell the Alabama/Georgia border town of Phenix when it was taken over by a gang of organized hoodlums who turn it into the Sin City of the South.

With crime skyrocketing and no one to turn to a group of concerned citizens get well respected Phenix lawyer Albert Patterson, John McIntire, to run for the office of State District Attorney. With the criminal element of Phenix doing everything, from intimidation to outright murder, to keep the voters form getting Patterson the nomination he still wins with the other 86 counties of the state, not including Phenix's Russell County, giving him the nod by just over 1,000 votes.

Terrified in what Patterson would do when he takes office head of the Phenix Mob Rett Tanner, Edward Andrews, has a hit put out on him. Patterson is gunned down while driving to his office but his killers are spotted by Ellie Rhodes, Kathryn Grant, who soon becomes, through an informer in Patterson's office, Tanner's next person in line to be targeted for murder. What Tanner & Co. didn't expect is that the late Albert Patterson's son John, Richard Kiley, got the news from Ellie about his dad's murder before his boys could shut her up! That major miscalculation on Tanner's part will end up putting an end to both his criminal organization as well as his freedom!

Powerful documentary-style crime movie with the actual persons involved in the events given some 15 minutes, at the start of the film, to tell their stories. This despite the fact that they were still in danger of being murdered by the Tanner Mob that was still at large at the time their interviews were filmed!

Finishing what his brave dad started John Patterson single handedly brought the story of Phenix City to the front pages of both the state and national newspapers giving Tanner the very negative publicity that he tried so hard to avoid. With the now Alabama National Guard flooding into Phenix City the blood-thirsty and gutless, in not willing to stand up to people with guns in their hands, Tanner Mob evaporated from sight like a morning mist after the sunlight hits it! And with John Patterson now taking the place of his murdered dad as the state of Alabama's new Attorney General you can be sure that the Patterson Mob has seen its last days of pushing people around as well as murdering them. The only thing that they'll see now in the future is the gray prison walls and bars that will be their home sweet home for the rest of their rotten and miserable lives!

Very probably the most graphically violent movie to come out of Hollywood up to that time 'The Phenix City Story' didn't pull any punches in showing how a group of lawless and powerful criminals can turn a quite American city into living hell for everyone in it. No one was speared from these ruthless gangsters who didn't even think twice when it came to murdering even women and children if that's what it took to keep them in power! As for the Phenix City Police Departmentn they had better thing to do then enforced the law that they were sworn and paid to uphold. They were out having coffee and donut's while their city was being burned to the ground by the gangsters like Tanner who had them in their hip pocket!


I am shocked to see that this movie has been given more than two stars by some people. They must either be kidding or be totally blind for the art of acting, directing and other flaws of the movie.

I must admit that I just could not force myself to sit through the whole movie, it was just too bad.

The three first characters, not including the 'digger' were just awful actors, and I mean AWFUL! Maybe the director didn't care, or may be he is a worse director. It was like watching a bad school play. The movie was of course filmed with a video camera (lowbudget - not real film), and the light settings were not very good either. In addition, the sound man (if they had one) must either have been a newbie or a drunk as the sound were amateurish. Even in one of the first scenes from the kitchen (AWFUL acting btw) the sound from the dialog was pretty bad. For example, when the woman moved her head while speaking, you could hear her voice disappear and come back. It sounded like they had tried to correct that in post-production by turning up the volume a bit when she turns her head. In addition, you had the ongoing irritating buzzing sound from either camera equipment or other sources in the kitchen.

All these squeakers in the first 5 minutes or so. Need I say more?

A good school project or fun project for friends to watch, but should never have been released for a real audience, especially not for a PAYING audience. THIS WAS A RIP OFF unless you have a very low standard regarding movies, or just bad taste. You are WARNED! SB.


This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.


This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.


Everything in this film is bad , the story , the acting , the effects but its funny , funny , funny !!!Scott Valentine with the army uniform thats ten sizes too big is so bad with the permanent attempt at a scowl on his face as the leader of a special ops group its hilarious ! The ''terrorists'' are as scary and realistic as the ''raptors'' , this is so phoney and bad at everything it tries you have to laugh .The part where the giant T-REX who somehow snuck on board a ship and then somehow got below is blown up and you see the metal pole sticking up where its head was is the perfect ending .If your into bad films , this is the pot of gold , the mona lisa of b-b-bad !!!


This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.

'Diary Of A Sex Addict' while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.


I meant that in a GOOD way, believe me. True to life, it ain't. The whole Oirish thing gets kinda thick, but you DO enjoy the cast here-Flynn, Smith, Bond, Watson, Frawley, etc. All good. I also liked seeing Mike Mazurki-of Course he played a boxer, what else? Typical forties flick teeming w/ familiar faces and fast paced scenes, one after the other.

Flynn is fine as Gentleman Jim, you never get past a 1 dimensional look at him or the rest here, I suppose, but it's okay, it's a cartoon and meant to please, that's all. The boxing scenes were pretty good, Ward Bond's vaudeville logging act a riot, and you hadda like seeing all those billyclub wielding bobbies come racing into the scene a couple of times.

Really alotta fun, Flynn was on a roll at that time and it's clear to see why audiences loved him.

*** outta ****


Please do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.

There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.

I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful.


Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5.


If you love Japanese monster movies, you'll love this action packed battle pitting an alien invader, intent upon conquering the Earth, and a 'Giant Robot' with an armory of super weaponry. The alien, 'Emporer Guillotine,' from the planet Gargoyle, has a army of thugs called, (of course) 'the gargoyle gang,' as well as an endless supply of immense hostile creatures that are routinely loosed upon the Earth to smash buildings, make loud noises, panic the populace, etc. A little kid, named Johnny Sokko, has the Giant Robot at his beckon call, and sends the Robot, as needed, to beat up, and then blast these creatures. Johnny joins a group of 'good spies' called Unicorn, and endeavors to help save the world.

In spite of the campy nature, unintentionally humorous dialog, and the fact that the target audience was obviously children, this movie has non-stop action, colorful characters, decent special effects, and just happens to be downright fun to watch. Battle scenes are well executed, and frequent, as the storyline requires. The good guys and bad guys both made sure they had an inexhaustible supply of bombs, lasers, ammunition, and schemes to attack each other. In spite of the fact the movie was constructed from edited episodes of a TV series, the plot actually develops, and reaches an ultimate conclusion.

The film has a positive outlook and appeals to everyone's (especially kids') desire to destroy evil in its many forms. Kids may be the target audience, but it's fun for everyone to laugh at its comical silliness; yet, at the same time, root for the good guys to prevail and 'save the world.' The acting is cheesy in places, but that is the charm: there are several lines of corny dialog (possibly translation errors or possibly intentional jokes by the movie makers), and you'll find yourself quoting these absurd lines later.

Admittedly, this film is not high in production quality or budget. However, for what it is, campy sci-fi, it's enjoyable for some laughs. I recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor for that sort of thing.


Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV/TV Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film.


Full disclosure: I'm a cynic. I like my endings sad and my hankies dry. I didn't cry when Bambi's mother was shot. Will Smith's new film Happiness looks like a desperate plea for an Oscar. Basically I was born without an artistic soul.

So why on earth did I like '10 Items or Less?' Maybe it was the double espresso I downed before the show. Or (more likely) maybe it was that even the most hardboiled of movie fans could use an occasional shot of sweetness.

And sweet it is. From the moment 'Him' meets 'Scarlet' (an event far from a Nora Ephron 'meet cute') the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. (Aided beautifully by Phedon Papamichael's cinema verity style camera work.)

The main argument about the film is that it's too far fetched. Is the film far fetched? I don't know. You tell me. I've yet to meet Adrian Brody at the market. (However, not for lack of trying). Do I enjoy considering the adventures that might occur should this momentous event take place? Darn straight I do . . .that's where most reviews of '10 Items or Less' fall short . . .they fail to take into account that even we cynics have fantasies. And heck, sometimes, it's worth the price of admission to vicariously live them, 82 minutes at a time.


OK so some of the plot points might be a bit obvious but over all an interesting idea which works towards a tight ending. The acting is solid particularly Lachy Hulme who plays one of the central characters in this ensemble piece. He certainly has a screen presence and he is interesting to watch. It has a low budget feel which works for the sort of thriller/horror genre Four Jacks belongs to. The film doesn't try to take itself to seriously which adds to the overall charm. The character of Phil(Dave Serrafin) has to be one of the most annoying character seen on screen since Rupert Pupkin/ King of Comedy. Worth adding to a weekend pile of DVDs.


i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2/10)


The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon.


Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of 'women who deserve it'. You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his 'penis of steel'. How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.

Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.


An old vaudeville team of Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (George Burns) were one of the best known but they broke up hating each other. Over 20 years later they agree to get together for a TV special...but find out they STILL hate each other. Willy's nephew/agent (Richard Benjamin) tries to get them to work together.

A big hit in its day and it won George Burns an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. I (somewhat) liked it. It was written by Neil Simon so its non-stop one-liners. Some of it was funny but making jokes of Willy and Al's senility was NOT. Also I never liked Matthau. I never thought he was a good actor and something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Also his character here is so caustic you get sick of him quickly. All that aside this was fun. Burns is just great tossing off one-liners with ease and even Matthau was good matching him. Their verbal battles are the best sequences in the movie. Also Benjamin is very good as Willy's nephew trying to get the two of them to work with each other. For me it's worth seeing for Burns alone. This jump started his career in a big way and two years later he had ANOTHER hit with 'Oh God'. So, this is good. Just good--not great. Matthau's character really makes this hard to love. I give it a 7.


I usually really like Lawrence and being in Australia I haven't seen much of his stand up, so when I saw this at my video shop I thought, yeah I'll have a look. I wish I hadn't seen it now. Obviously Lawrence had a profound experience that opened up his mind, and I guess he wants to share this with others but this was neither the time nor the place.

This whole experience seemed like a motivational speech in hell, it really did. I believe the catch phrase of the night was 'ride it until the wheels fall off' which he intermingled with just plain lewd jokes revolving around sex and sexual organs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind crude humor, but Lawrence lacks the gift of classing it up in the fashion of Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior or Robin Williams. Lawrence was just plain lewd, the only time I laughed was when he relived his experience with the law and his recovery in the hospital. If there were minus points, i would give them....


I only went to see this movie because I have always liked Kevin Costner. I felt that Ashton did a great job in the Butterfly Effect. Unfortunately, even though these two actors were/are capable of good if not great acting moments some of that was missing here. Some of the scenes were just not believable and didn't have enough story line support.

Though the movie claims influence from the hurricane Katrina aftermath, there was very little (none) to that effect in the movie.

Overall, I liked the fact that the movie brought forward some of what goes into saving lives from a water perspective.

The special effects were pretty good and more than a little intimidating. Not sure I'll ever go deep sea fishing again...

I expected a little more emotion in the film than what was presented.

Definitely a movie that could've been seen on DVD.


This movie is pretty good. Half a year ago, i bought it on DVD. But first i thought that it was the original film. I have seen the series and it is a good film, but here, they have put 'The Living Legend,part1 and 2',and 'Fire in space' together. The same as they did with the first film, but with other episodes. But still, it is a pretty good film. Only the ending is strange (you don't see what happens with the Pegasus). But I still think that it is pretty good. The actors and special effects were good. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Starring:Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herb. Jefferson Jr., Tony Swartz, Terry Carter, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Stauffer.


This film is essentially for those who have had little or no introduction to hip-hop, specifically turntableism, as was the case with the director before he started this film. It was cool to have it focus on the bay more than expected, because NY is always getting all the credit, but comin from the bay the Q-Bert worship is a little out of control. This film didn't introduce anything new to me, but it did change my opinion in that going into it I was sketchy about the prospect of giving the tables the distinction of being a bona fide instrument. This film ought to convince anyone that it's right up there with the viola and clavichord.


This miniseries is a reasonable sequel to the original Gone With The Wind. If one views this on its own merit (and not immediately following the original), it comes out pretty good. I am sure that most viewers will question the performances of Scarlett and Rhett, but it seems unlikely that anyone else could have done better. Many of the characters here are new to this storyline, so comparison in those cases (Rhett's mother, Uncle Henry Hamilton, Will Benteen)is not a problem. No one will every be Vivien Leigh or Clark Gable.

The best part of the whole production is the beautiful scenery of springtime Charleston and Ireland. Watch it for that alone. Obviously, this was a high budget TV miniseries. It follows the book for a while, then has a totally new plot when Scarlett goes to Ireland.

The acting is credible if nothing special--kind of the way I feel about Roger Moore following Sean Connery for James Bond.


If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.

After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.

OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.

The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.

Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO!


In a sport that prizes quirkiness and treasures it's characters, one of the greatest of them from the 1930s was pitcher Dizzy Dean. He was so colorful a personality he was probably elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the strength of that as opposed to his pitching statistics. After all part of the Dean story is that early end to his career.

In the Pride of St. Louis Dan Dailey successfully captures the character of Dizzy Dean, at least the Dean I remember. I'm not old enough to remember him pitching, but I do remember him broadcasting Baseball Game of the Week during the 1960s. For that's part of the Dean story as well, being a pioneer broadcaster on radio and later television. Now that announcers are in the Hall of Fame, there's no question Dizzy belongs there.

Jerome Herman Dean was one of a tribe of sharecropper's kids who had very little schooling, but an amazing talent for throwing a baseball at blinding speed. In fact he had a younger brother Paul Dean who was a pretty good pitcher himself.

Richard Crenna plays Paul in this film and it's one of his earliest film roles. Paul Dean in real life was a quiet retiring sort who's career was also cut short by injuries. Because of that Crenna isn't given much to work with. During the Dean heyday, sportswriters tried to pin the nickname of Daffy on Paul, but it never took.

Joanne Dru, taking a break from playing, western gals in gingham dresses and corsets is first rate as the wise, patient, and understanding Patricia Nash who met and married Dizzy while he was playing for Houston in the Texas League.

In the 1937 All Star Game Dizzy started for the National League. Facing Cleveland's Earl Averill, Dean was hit on the foot by a line drive smack at him. Refusing to listen to medical advice, Dean came back to pitch too early. He'd broken a big toe and put too much of a strain on his arm. He was never the same pitcher and his refusal to accept that is part of the story.

Had he had a career of say ten to fifteen years who knows what pitching statistics he might have rolled up. Dean was the next to last pitcher to win 30 games in 1934 and after Denny McLain(who was something of a character himself)did it 1968 it hasn't been done since.

Dean went into broadcasting and while he was not the first former player to go into the broadcast booth, his colorful game descriptions made him an instant hit. He started broadcasting for the other St. Louis team, the Browns, and the Browns were a pretty miserable team with not much to cheer about. Dean became a star attraction there.

Of course part of the Dean story is the trouble he got into because of his lack of education and his colorful way of expressing himself on the air. That's part of the story I won't go into, but in the film it's handled with tact and humility and your eyes might moisten if you tend to the sentimental.

A fine baseball film, a real tribute to an American success story.


One of the ten best comedies ever

This seems a comedy so joyous and light that sings. Keaton's comedies are _innerly, harmoniously, intelligently ordered, thought.

Wonderfully amusing, deliberately delightful and inventive, THREE AGES should belong to a draft of a comedies top ten if I were to sketch one. A threefold love story will enchant the viewers; I want to bring here this approachKeaton's comedy is like Lang's DESTINY upsidedownor À REBOURS. Again a couple traverses the waters of timeand of epochsin the Stone Age, in Rome and in Keaton's timesin a Mohammedan country, in Renaissance Italy and in China. The same device works in the both moviesone, a grim, eerie melodrama; --the other, a light, virtuouslypaced comedy. At Keaton it's essentially the same couple; and maybe the same is with Lang. The babe desired by both Buster and Beery is nice. I have found THREE AGES well written and smart, without being ostentatiously sophisticated; the plot is basically very POPEYElikethe babe is a piece of furniture, the only protagonists are the two male rivalsKeaton and Beery.

Keaton's movie is simply enormously likable, and perhaps one would be tempted to assert this looks like ambitious funyet it's not, but it is grand fun, large fun, ample fun. And Wallace Beery makes a fine nemesis.


It was a serious attempt to show the developing sexuality of two schoolgirls and did not try to exploit its fact Even by today's standards, the film is interesting and provocative

Therese and Isabelle are both attending the same girl's school Therese is energetic, intelligent, and becomes a mentor for the innocent, naive, sweet Isabelle She guides her through a number of exotic experiences, including a trip through an exclusive brothel, into her first lesbian liaison, and indirectly into her first heterosexual experience

The film does not exploit any sex, nor is there an abundance of nudity... The imagery is effective, but sometimes the camera lingers too long, and the story goes slowly

The director, Radley Metzger, went on to make a number of explicit erotic films under the name of Henry Paris He always has extremely detailed stories, good acting, and very high standards of cinematography...

Artistically, however, this is perhaps his most complete His later attempts supplied for entertainment, whereas 'Therese and Isabelle' was a study into the nature of youthful eroticism...


This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet 'monster'... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching 'Matlock' reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!


George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan 'Swipes' (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer.

In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. 'Swipes' enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)

As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.


A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's 'le feu follet' (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.

The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as 'our hero',one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.

This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps.


Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.


This might contain a spoiler, so beware.

If it had been 200,000 thousand or two million people, does it make a difference? Sometimes I get so angry at the apparent apathy of a small number of (strangely very LOUD) Americans, but I have to remember that many people here in the US were not bred or raised to care about anything outside of their comfort zone. God Help us for what we have done. after the relative ease of what we did to the native Americans, and the indifference to the horrors of enslaving a race, you would think we'd have grown hearts and souls in the late 60's and early 70's. But now I see it is OK as long as our ends are justified to only us. How then, can we look at any other dictator and horrible government and think we are somehow doing good to impose our will? We are contradictory and hypocritical, and I am ashamed for this. I feel sorrow for the people affected. They deserve justice and their homes back. If this was done in my name as an American for my supposed safety, I don't want it. I denounce these actions, and hope our global community understands that many Americans believe the American government is a runaway train of deceit. No one is above the law. I want my country back, and so do the Chagos Islanders. Regardless of what people post from the anonymity of their computers, no one can in their heart deny that they would be unwilling to give up their birthplace for some bombs and heliports. We can't stand to be stuck in traffic, let alone forcibly and unjustly removed from our homes. 'Not one of us, Brit and American alike forget what goes around comes around. Don't buy into the fallacy that a simpler, more natural civilization is somehow less worthy of having their rights observed, and preserved - when we turn our backs on the basic human rights and dignities of 2000, we turn away from the basic human rights and dignities of all men.


I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.


Antonio Margheriti's 'Danza Macabra' aka. 'Castle Of Blood' of 1964 is a beautiful and incredibly haunting masterpiece of Italian Gothic Horror, and after Mario Bava's 'La Maschera Del Demonio' (aka. 'Black Sunday') of 1960 and Roger Corman's 'Pit And The Pendulum' of 1961 (starring the great Vincent Price) another must-see that earned the wonderful Barbara Steele her more than deserved fame as the most important female Horror icon in the history of motion pictures. But not only is the beautiful and brilliant Barbara Steele one of my favorite actresses of all-time, the screenplay to 'Danza Macabra' was co-written by no one less than the cinematic genius Sergio Corbucci, who directed such ingenious Spaghetti Western milestones as 'Django' (1966) and 'The Great Silence' (1968). Italy's number 2 in the field (right after Mario Bava), Director Antonio Margheriti is one of the all-time masters of Gothic Horror, and 'Castle of Blood' is doubtlessly his greatest achievement. Hardly another film works so brilliantly in creating an incredibly haunting, yet beautiful atmosphere as it is the case with this creepy masterpiece.

When he encounters the famous writer of brilliant macabre stories, Edgar Allen Poe, in a gloomy London tavern, young journalist Alan Foster (Georges Rivière) accepts a bet from a nobleman, that he can not spend a night in his haunted castle in the night of all souls' eve. As soon as Foster enters the eerie castle, mysterious things start to happen. After a little while, however, he encounters an enchanting resident of the castle, the stunningly beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele). The mysterious events so far, however, have only been forebodings of the terrors the castle bears, however...

The eerie castle setting alone would be sufficient to create a gloomy mood, the excellent black and white cinematography and a great score by Riz Ortolani create an incredibly haunting atmosphere that is eerie beyond comparison. The wonderful Barbara Steele is fantastic as always, I simply can not find enough words to praise this wonderful actress. No other actress has ever been capable of uniting ravishing beauty with the uncanny as it is the case with Steele, and no actress ever will. Besides Steele, the movie's cast contains another stunning beauty, Margarete Robsahm, and she also delivers a great performance. George Rivière's performance as Alan Foster is great, and the rest of the performances are also very good. 'Castle of Blood' is outstanding in many departments: Barbara Steele Delivers one of her best performances, the cinematography and locations are beautifully haunting beyond comparison, the atmosphere is incredibly eerie... The film simply is a perfect whole of atmosphere, Gothic beauty and the art of terror. In short: 'Castle of Blood' is one of the most atmospheric and greatest Gothic Horror films ever made, and must not be missed by anyone interested in the genre! 10/10


I first saw this movie about 3 years ago. I was shocked at how stupid the FBI was not to prevent such a tragedy. It could have been easily prevented. This movie was just unbelievable.

Now seeing it after September 11th, I am appalled and can say that this could have been prevented more easily that most people would want to know.

This film is 100% true

In the final scene of the film, when the mastermind of the 1st attack is being taken to prison by helicopter and flies over the towers, he makes a spine chilling remark, that was laughed at when he said it. 'Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down.' This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.

This movie reveals the shocking truth about how the first attacks were carried out right under the noses of the FBI and NYPD. It shows how the 1st and 4th Amendments are partially to blame for the attacks.

I watch this movie now and know that both attacks could have been prevented.


First off, I refuse to even consider this piece of work a Music video... I consider it a short film that uses excerpts of the song 'Thriller' in its soundtrack. To me a music video must be no longer than the song itself, and the song must play the entire length of the video. Calling this a music video is like calling The Great Gatsby a poem. On top of this... let's face it... 'thriller' is a boring 14 minutes, including the extremely dated werewolf transformation, the mindless Vincent Price poem (just because VP recites it doesn't mean it's not lame), and the least threatening zombies I have ever seen. Sure, this was certainly a cultural phenomenon, but don't forget, this also happened at the same time the A-Team was the #1 show on TV, so lets not give the culture too much credit on that one... One last point on this film's impact on the media on music videos... what exactly did this add to the equation that 'Billie Jean' and 'Beat It' didn't already add? From what I can tell, it only added the practice of stopping the song for some dialog, or a superfluous dance scene... so you could say that all this video really did was give Puffy the inspiration to make more annoying music videos... Not quite my definition of great


By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great 'Truck Stop Women' from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some 'vintage' clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.


A couple of cowpokes help a group of Mormons cross some rough country on their way to a new settlement. This low-key Western is unusual for Ford in that it lacks any big stars. Johnson gets top-billing but his is basically a supporting role, although he and Carey work well together. Dru is given little to do other than provide the love interest. The best performance is given by Ford favorite Bond, playing the leader of the Mormons. In fact, this role helped him land a starring role in the long-running TV Western 'Wagon Train' before his untimely death at age 57. Featuring beautiful cinematography, Ford regarded this as one of his favorite films.


This is the worst film I've seen in a looooong time. It reminded me of a Cirque du Soleil show I saw in Vegas six years ago -- without the athleticisme. By that I mean a few striking, artsy, images appear randomly, without any sustaining framework. The fake sepia tinted film is really tacky. This device is almost never justified and certainly is not in _Tuvalu_. With apologies to Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time.


This is a little-seen anti-war film that has been ignored for too long. The time is Thanksgiving of 1972. The place is a typical suburban home somewhere in Texas. The oldest son has just comeback from Vietnam and he is having a hell of time readjusting to the life he had left behind. And the family does not know how to handle the problem. I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one the most heart-wrenching war films I've seen. The funny thing is that there are only a handful of combat sequences in the entire movie. Most of the story takes place inside a house over a period of a couple of days. But the kind of war that takes place in this home is as intense as any real battlefield action. The film does something that is difficult to accomplish; somehow, Estevez and his team have created a film that embodies the entire Vietnam experience. And considering the similarities between Vietnam and the current invasion of Iraq, the film is surprisingly relevant. Estevez does a magnificent job with material. He gets a lot of help from a hand-picked cast. Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates in particular are superb as the parents. A truly moving film. Highly recommended


Set in 2017 (although one might easily mistake it for 1987, judging by the hairstyles and clothing), The Running Man sees all-round good guy Ben Richards (Schwarzeneggar) framed for a crime he didn't commit. After a daring prison break, he is captured and entered as a contestant in the brutal TV game show The Running Man, along with some fellow escapees and the pretty token female, Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso),.

Used by the totalitarian government as a way of controlling the masses, the show pits convicts against a range of colourful (and often quite camp) opponents, each having his own unique killing style: Dynamo fires electricity from a special suit, Buzzsaw uses chainsaws, Sub Zero has a razor edged ice hockey stick, and Fireball prefers a flamethrower to finish off contenders. But these killers are no match for Ben Richards, who dispatches each one in a fittingly gruesome manner (followed by the obligatory witticism).

Towards the end of the movie, Ben joins a group of freedom fighters in a battle against the authorities, and gets to exact revenge on the show's nasty host, Killian.

Twenty years ago, Arnold Schwarzeneggar ruled the action-movie universe and, to his legion of fans, he could do no wrong. The Austrian beefcake had a successful formula that almost guaranteed box office success for his movies: comic book violence plus logic-free plot plus pretty female sidekick plus witty one-liners, minus acting ability equalled massive profits. The Running Man faithfully followed this blockbuster recipe to a T and Arnie's (mostly male teenage) audience lapped it up (myself included).

Now, two decades later, and having just finished re-watching the movie for the first time in years, I find it a strange movie: one totally devoid of technical merit, decent acting, and convincing effects, yet somehow totally entertaining. Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (best known as Det. Dave Starsky from cult 70s cop show, Starsky and Hutch), and adapted from a short story by Stephen King (writing under the nom de plume, Richard Bachman), The Running Man is cheesy 80s tat that looks both incredibly cheap and very dated, yet despite (or maybe because of) the film's shoddiness, it has a special charm which is hard to describe.

With no attempt at creating a realistic near-future setting, the film provides plenty of unintentional giggles. Check out the scene in which Ben discovers Amber's secret cache of forbidden cassette tapes(!); marvel at the crap 'futuristic' graphics used on advertising billboards and The Running Man board game (as a graphic designer, I found these particularly amusing); be amazed at the distinct lack of convincing technological advancements.

The Running Man may be utter rubbish, but it is hugely entertaining utter rubbish that I have no hesitation in recommending to fans of Arnie and sci-fi action in general.


You know, people who make comedies so often forget it's really ok to be outrageous. Well, not this time. Unconditional Love has it all. Barry Manilow and a dwarf in a movie with Cathy Bates as the romantic lead...and it works. Not only does it work, it works very very well. In fact, I think it's perfect. I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself yet the main characters were all so human, so honest, and so very real. But isn't that where great comedies come from? Don't characters need real feelings, real emotions, and the ability to feel real pain? Well, they do in this movie. Unconditional Love is a movie you shouldn't miss, especially if you need a seriously good laugh, or you're at all curious about seeing the psychotic dwarf in the red raincoat.


The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's 'Nine Lives' comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.

Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked 'Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her,' also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of 'Nine Lives,' that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.

Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike 'Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her') feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.


I'm not ruining anything when I inform you that you get to see a woman have sex with a goat in this movie. If that is your thing, then your movie has arrived.

A woman and her husband go to see her estranged sister in the family mansion in the woods. Her sister is a creepy lady to say the least, and she seems to have interests that go beyond family love. On the side a group of unsavory characters show up and begin enacting all kinds of pagan rituals.

The plotting is pretty weak and the characters are pretty dumb. The woman sticks around even after her husband starts turning into a jerk and hanging out with the pagans, even continues the have sex with him. On the exploitative side of things, there is much bared flesh and a couple of kinky couplings, but nothing that hasn't been better somewhere else. Oh, and the aforementioned goat-sex scene.

Most viewers won't make it to the end. Exploitation fans will ride it out, but will be left wanting more.

4/10


I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.

This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.

I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.

If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.

What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.


Brilliant use of overstated technicolor illustrates the optimistic extremes of present day Christmas ceremonies. The voyeuristic element during the scenes (Santa & Pedro summarize society's behavior peering through a telescope) is unique (and obviously Jean-Luc Godard, although he was subtle, stole this theme in his film 'Pierrot le-fou'). Highly recommended!


Now this is one of Big's Best, Jack Hulbert's single role in 1931 split into two for the Band Waggon radio team Askey & Murdoch. It boasts a great stalwart cast, who ham the play up for all they're worth, especially Askey of course. Histrionics were provided by Linden Travers, melodramatics by Herbert Lomas, and pragmatics by Richard Murdoch.

The group of rail passengers stranded at the lonely country station for the night find more than they bargained for, ghostly trains, spectral porters, hairy sausage rolls and Arthur trying to entertain them all. His repartee with everyone falls between side-splitting and ghastly dull. When the formula works it's very good, but it sometimes gets very contrived and forced making the film seem more dated than it is. But those damn treacherous fifth columnists - thank any God Britain hasn't got any nowadays!

Ultimately a nice harmless film, to welcome back to the TV screen as an old friend, but if you were expecting to be shivered out of your timbers you'll probably be very disappointed!


By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.


I got seriously ripped off with this purchase. The other posters pretty well cover the failings of this poor poor film. My DVD that I purchased actually had the 1978 Piranha poster art on the cover with the credits for that film on the front 'Directed by Joe Dante', etc. I was really disappointed to find the wrong film on the disc. I am actually a fan of lots of bad movies. There is always something funny or at least amusing on most of them somewhere. NOt this film! I am actually going to spend the three dollars in gas money to return this two dollar DVD just for the principle of the thing. Blatant false packaging here. Easily the worst movie of all time. No redeeming factors at all. BORING!!!Not even worth checking out just to see how bad it is. Seriously.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Much reviled when it first appeared, (inspiring the famous review 'Me No Leica'), this precursor of 'Cabaret' can now be looked at in comparison and it's not half bad. It's certainly no classic but it has its own wayward charm, (the film version of 'Cabaret' follows this plot whereas the stage version changed the plot somewhat). One should, of course, resist the temptation to snicker when Laurence Harvey's Christopher Isherwood, (it keeps the original author's real name; God Knows what Isherwood thought of it), describes himself as 'a confirmed bachelor' and while Harvey is an utterly inadequate 'hero', (he's virtually asexual), and Shelly Winters woefully miscast as Fraulien Landauer, (the part Marisa Berenson played in 'Cabaret'), Julie Harris is a perfectly marvellous Sally, (it's a lovely piece of comic acting), and Anton Diffring is first-rate as Fritz, the German-Jew in love with Shelly's character. Of course, if 'Cabaret' had never come along you might ask yourself would this ever have seen the light of day again. That it has been revived may not quite be cause for celebration but it's perfectly acceptable all the same.


Despite the acclaim on the DVD cover of the version I borrowed, this film was a disappointment. Yes, it is far more realistic than other war films of the period for depicting the mud, boredom and frustration of the grunt, but unfortunately one comes away from it thinking that's ALL there is to this movie. There is no plot and the dialogue is monotonous. It's not that a good war film needs to have a battle scene every five minute. One of the best World War II films, 'Twelve O'Clock High,' has very little action. But it compensates with crackling dialogue and psychological tension. The exception to 'The Story of G.I. Joe' is a brief battle segment (titled 'city under siege' on the DVD) which takes place in Italy. Admittedly it is one of the most fast-paced and convincing combat scenes of any war movie. But alas, the rest of the film is not worth watching just for this highlight. Another turn-off is Pvt. Dondaro, played by Wally Cassell, who is meant to be a 'romeo' but comes off a pervert. By contrast, Sgt. Warnicki is a sympathetic, if flawed, man. As he says to Capt. Walker (Mitchum) when volunteering for another patrol: 'Every step forward is a step closer... to home.' But that last step  one patrol too many  drives him over the mental brink. Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't do justice to some otherwise fine touches. As for Meredith's portrayal of Pyle... it is practically comatose.


This is just my all time favorite movie. Nothing special. It's just so incredibly detailed. Makes me cry just thinking about it. Geronimo Bill is the nicest guy I can imagine. Money is not important. Bamboo spears are important. You don't need money to get what you need. If you need something it will just come to you. If people would realize that the world would be a much better place. Whatever you do, don't do it for the money.


This wonderful movie really takes the time to step back and tell the story without words. The end of the movie contains almost no dialogue but what is in the minds of the characters is always perfectly clear. You know the film is not going to have a happy ending but you leave the film feeling hopeful.


It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.<br /><br />I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain


Across the great divide which we call understanding, there is still much we do not know about that which was explained by the early tribal Elders. In every instance, there is much concerning the dangers of knowing too much. Conversely, there are those who warn us of not preparing for what they warn is the 'End Time.' In this movie called ' The Last Wave ' an aboriginal native is murdered for no apparent reason. When those responsible are arrested, they remain silent less they disturb the order of things. David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) plays the Defense Attorney assigned to defend the accused. Although haunted by prophetic images from his own childhood and warned by modern signs given to him by an sympathetic Aboriginal named Chris Lee (David Gulpilil), Burton proceeds to defend the infraction as Tribal Law and therefore not subject to standard justice. The movie is fraught with puzzling, dark foreboding images of apocalyptic end world disasters and warns of a future island tsunami and doom. Black drama and deep rituals are what gives this film it's frightening allure and therefore is not for the faint-hearted, in fact the simplest haunting apparitions can last for years in the nightmares of innocent movie goers. Good silent drama. ****


I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well.

7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out.


I can't believe I sat through this garbage. Palm trees in D.C. (already mentioned), a dummy-as-dead-body bit so obviously artificial that I thought it was SUPPOSED to be a dummy ... until it left a bloodstain ... stilted dialogue, ridiculous plot. I think it's a shame that Jill Ireland's final film before her death was this stinker. Don't waste your time - I wish I hadn't. The only saving grace is that it was on cable, so I didn't waste my money on top of everything.


I watched this on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on, it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. I urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be, surely it was deliberate. I cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish, unrehearsed, badly executed way that it was beyond belief. This is the movie that makes Spiceworld look like Goodfellas, think I am exaggerating? Well give it airtime and think again. Dreadful, utterly dreadful. If this wasn't a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.


Honestly, buying this movie was a waste of money. It's one of the most boring movies I have seen in my life. The only part I liked is the ending, but it's so slow that not even the fantastic ending can save this movie.