What's the best way to start a review of a movie like Der Todesking? Let me start by saying I've just come direct from viewing this movie, and the images are still burned deep into my brain - and I don't think they'll be moving any time soon.

It's probably fair to say that if you're on this page you have a good idea what sort of film this is even if you haven't seen it. If not, let me forewarn you that this is not a moderate-budget gem that's been lost for a few years a la 'Near Dark', nor is it a low budget, schlocky, 'fun' B-movie. What it is it low-budget art, put forward in a simple yet poignant way. The idea is a simple one - seven stories revolving around, and ending in, suicides interspersed with footage of a decomposing corpse. Sounds simple right, even boring? It isn't. Words can't really describe how powerful this film becomes by the time you are halfway through; it virtually draws you into it whether you want to go or not.

I could go on a ramble here about the technical pros and cons of the direction; maybe point out that the scenes are obviously shot on super-8 cameras and are at sometimes shaky. I could point out that some of the sound effects are out-of-sync in a way to rival any Fulci movie, but at the end of the day this all seems to pale into insignificance.

As far as extreme movies go, I've seen the hardest of them, and yet Der Todesking moved me in a way that few others have managed, despite not being particularly gory and having very few scenes that I would consider 'gratuitous'. In fact, the most disturbing scene I found was the last tale. I won't ruin it, just to say that the character's emotional agony virtually drips from the screen and makes you sympathise, if not yearn for his end.

Sure, it's not the best movie ever made, and in a lot of places is seems crude and maybe a little amateurish, but in spite of these flaws Der Todesking is an experience I would recommend to anyone who likes challenging cinema. If you're someone who likes comfortable viewing or 'nice' movies, or simply wants to gross out on something brutal and pointless, this is not what you're looking for.

Whether you enjoy it or not, It's one you won't forget in a hurry.


Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.

In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.

Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.

Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.

Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realized. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.

If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians


Due to its predictable, second-rate title, (the one it was distributed under in Italy, at least) I didn't expect much from this movie. Thought it'd be another cheap flick about a haunted house ('LA CASA MALEDETTA' means 'The cursed house'). Well, I had to change my mind just after the very first brilliant scene! The constant presence of priests and the creepy atmospheres, reminded me a bit of The Exorcist and some of its decent Italian rip-offs, but this was going to be something completely different... This is more like Hitchcock meets Italian thriller! Very well written and directed, good actors, interesting plot... OK, I've tried not to spoil the viewing of '7 Hyden Park' for you, which I'd highly recommend to everyone.

P.S. Am I wrong, or when Joanna crawls or tries hard to stand (she's paralyzed from the waist down) her feet and legs move a little too much? (... And I'm not talking of the 'bad dream' sequence.)


Tweety is sent in his cage on a train by his old-lady owner. In the same baggage car, also in a cage, is Sylvester.

In no time, Sylvester has grabbed Tweety but a trainman comes back and slaps the 'sneakin' feline,' as he calls him, back in his cage. He puts Tweety 'in a safer place,' up high and tells the cat, 'Now, remember: no tricks!' Sylvester puts his halo on and looks innocent. Yeah, right.

I found the funniest stuff, however, didn't involve Sylvester versus Tweety but the 'viscious dog' that is in another cage next to Sylvester. The cat gets mouthy with him, and pays a big price in an extremely funny manner. Sylvester just doesn't learn, but that's one reason we love him! (I know a number of IMDb reviewers don't like Tweety but I like both main characters - they both crack me up!)

Also, the train, and the passing scenery, is beautifully illustrated in here - really nice visuals.


My mom always told me to sit down and to actually watch this movie because it's one of her favorites, I never did for years until I caught one night on TV. This movie was great, I don't even know how to explain it. Not only is the cast excellent (Julia Roberts, Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, and Oliver Platt) but the story is awesome. It's freaky but not too scary and it makes you think. I was left speechless after this film and amazed of how good of actors and actress all five of these people really are. Where did William Baldwin go, he's great. This film is a must see for anyone, if you haven't seen it go rent it, you will not be sorry. Amazing!


An old saying goes 'If you think you have problems, visit a hospital.' That has been updated in recent years to 'If you think you have problems, watch a TV talk show...especially Jerry Springer's!' This movie is one of those that is so bad, it's good! That's why I gave it a seven-it's all right, but not great. It's a great way to waste 95 minutes, just as the daily talk show is advertised as 'an hour of your life you'll never get back!' All the familiar themes are here...unfaithful husbands/boyfriends, the wildest audience on television, women flashing Jerry, etc. The shocker was watching Molly Hagan, who normally plays sweet characters ('Seinfeld' and 'Herman's Head') playing a trailer-trash mom and Jaime Pressly ('My Name Is Earl') as her equally trashy daughter, performing sexual favors for virtually every man with whom they came in contact. The men (including the staff producer) were presented as quintessential lunkheads who deserved what they got. I don't want to spoil or reveal everything but the movie plays like the daily show. Here in Phoenix, it's shown back-to-back for two hours every morning and, after that, everything else seems to pale. Again, I give this movie a seven...it's good but not great. Jerry Springer is best taken in small one hour doses.


Is it just me or are most of the actors in this adaptation miscast age-wise?

Jemma Redgrave, although a superior actress, seems as if she should be joining her children instead of nodding off on the couch. (I would have loved to see Brenda Blethlyn in the part, her connection to the latest Pride and Prejudice notwithstanding.)

Blake Ritson and Rory Kinnear were the only two whom I felt lived up to their characters in spirit and performance. Every else looked confused or out of place.

Luckily, I'm not very familiar with Dr. Who (I've only seen a few episodes so far) or it would have definitely soured this further.

Too bad Mansfield Park has not yet seen its due on screen (either large or small). This novel requires the talent of a Robert Altman to balance all the complexities of the characters successfully.


I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself 'I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny', but needless to say I watched the whole way through.

I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.

It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again.


This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a 'concept only' film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.

The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.

The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.

Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.


I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.

There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered.

Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you


1st watched 2/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)


To start, I'm not a person to rate movies that I haven't seen, nor am I a person that rates movies 1's when they don't deserve it. This movie was really that bad. The basic plot was extremely formulaic, and while it wasn't great, the plot deserved about a 5. The part that really bothered me was anything referencing swimming in the film. I compiled a short list of things wrong with the swimming aspects of this film.

1. No character development. 2. No sense of time. 3. Completely inaccurate swimming scenes, which include: a. A team of six swimmer going to something called both 'Nationals' and 'regional' with no mention of how they qualify. b. This same team going to whatever the hell this meet was without swimming a real meet at any point in the film. c. The rival program goes from being a high school to a club team back to a high school and then a club team again. d. In the scene where Ellis is interviewing for a job the banners show high school state wins and placements at nationals, yet the team consists of anywhere from 5 to 12 swimmers depending on which of the 3 meets are happening. e. A team of 5 guys and a girl win nationals/regions whatever. f. Said girl wins a men's 100 butterfly event. g. In this race, said girl beats two guys from a team that the previous year was in the top 3 in the nation. h. The announcer changes a race from the 200 breast to the 100 breast back to the 200 again in the span on about 45 seconds. i. In the final relay, the 4X100, which is being swum in a 50 meter long course pool, one swimmer is seen doing two flip turns. j. In this same relay, the teams anchor swimmer freaks out and steps off the blocks, prompting an inspirational pep talk, which lasts for about two and a half minutes, or about 3 times as long as the leg would take at a national caliber meet. k. The movie begins in the month of July or August, assuming that Ellis was applying before the school year started, and the pool was to be closed in 3 months, so assuming these things both hold true, the swimmers went from not being able to swim to winning nationals/regional whatever, in less than two, as the pool had to be cleaned and the kids didn't start practicing for a while. l. I'm sure there are a couple hundred more, I'm just trying to block them out of my memory. 4. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of a swimmers time. 5. If you're going to have a movie about swimming, it would be a good idea to hire extras that know how to swim well. 6. The scene where the kid is kicked underwater is physically impossible.

That being said, all the swimming scenes were way too slow, swimmers had horrible technique, and the idea of being able to qualify for a national meet within three months of learning to swim is just insulting to swimmers everywhere.

OK, if you still don't believe me, let me say that this movie is one of the 5 worst films i have ever seen, and this is coming from the guy that owns Gigli, Soul Plane, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Skullduggery, and any number of other total piece of crap that have been put on film. Please don't go!


Ghoulies 4 is pretty ghoulish sequel. The ghoulies look very different from the first three ghoulies, but there still cool. There are some nice flash backs, from Ghoulies the first movie. Jonathan is back once again in this one. He wasn't in parts 2 or 3 though. The movie is low budget at times, but fun to watch. You've got Tony Cox as the Dark Ghoulie and Arturo Gil as the Light Ghoulie. The ghoulies in this movie are actually good guys, instead of evil like in the first three movies. Both Ghoulies are pretty funny characters in the movie. Then you've got the very hot Alexandra! It's a great dark comedy and funny! Any fan of the ghoulies movies will enjoy watching Ghoulies 4. The DVD is finally coming out this July 2007! Hopefully one day Ghoulies III will be on DVD in the USA. I'd really like to see a sequel to this movie one day too. I doubt it will happen though. It's 2007 now and no sign of a sequel yet. If there ever is a sequel I hope Jim Wynorski will make it.

I give Ghoulies IV a 9/10


There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled 'Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts'. It ended with a simple message saying: 'please don't do any of the above in my movie'.

There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.

I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.

Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.

I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.

Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.

It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.


This show is just another bad comedy which will probably be cancelled after two seasons. It's not just that the jokes are sexist/racist/homophobic, they're also not funny and clichéd. In the first episode the Father said something along the lines of ' I wish women didn't go out and get jobs and have the same rights as men blah blah blah' That really helps attitudes huh? Then he was making fun of his son saying he was weird. What parent says their kid is weird? So overall this show is boring, unoriginal, offencive, clichéd and most of all NOT FUNNY. Yeah American Dad's offencive. But it does also make you laugh and is obviously taking the micky. Thats the difference.


Hak hap(Black Mask)is what I'd like to call a ballet with fists and explosions. Sure the plot has been tried and heard before, (A biologically engineered soldier that is part of a elite fighting force of supermen that decides he feels that killing and brute force aren't the ways to settle every thing and becomes a pacifist, and a librarian. But when he learns that the rest of his group is trying to get an antidote that will keep them alive by taking on the police -his best friend is a cop- he becomes the black mask.) the style that the movie goes for, very visual, works and at least for me is entertaining. I love martial arts movies that are a spectical. People flying around lighter than air and recovering a split second after impact keeps the pace and action non stop. But that is what this movie is about anyway right, a showcase of Jet Li doing what he does best, and that is spectacular showmanship of his skills, which to say the least are top notch. As with most of the fast action martial arts movies ala. Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung that are just now showing themselves here in the states for the first time, these movies are low on plot and high on amazing physical feats. But I must say, even with the large holes left in the plot (like how do we see him safe in his apartment when just one scene before he had 20 men that are no more than 15 feet from him with sign of escape? Who knows the scene just cuts to him in the apartment.......ohh well suspension of belief I guess) , the movie to me stays interesting. It is only until the last 20 minutes that the film seems to feel like it could have been a little shorter. But still all around a great high paced action movie.


I always said that the animated Batman movies were much better than the live action films.

I've seen all of the animated films, but out of the bunch, this is the poorest, and it's rather disappointing.

'Mask of the Phantasm' would rank as the best, then 'World's Finest', then 'Sub Zero', then 'Return of the Joker', and finally this ranks last.

In this newest animated movie, there's a mysterious new batgirl in Gotham and Batman is intent on discovering whether she's friend or foe as she sets out on a quest for vengeance.

But as Bruce gets involved with three young women, he begins investigating them and discovers who is the new batgirl.

The tone in this film is unusually light considering most of the films are grim and bleak, which was rather disappointing. Bruce acts strangely out of character most of the time, the villains are re-used from the last films, and while the action scenes are exciting, they're really nothing new. It also lacks the dramatic impact the other films have, especially that of 'Sub-Zero' which was heavy in drama and character development.

Everything in the film feels pretty recycled and the supporting characters are charming but no one is actually worth rooting for.

All the while, I really enjoyed this, I had a blast, and the identity of the new batgirl is surprising, but this wasn't as exciting as I'd hoped.

(**half out of ****)


I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.

To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently 'Eastern-European' and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?

I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???


It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either.


I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.


When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting  be it swordplay or fisticuffs  and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.

'Sword in the Moon' is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.

Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.

Sadly, 'Sword' doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.

I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'


Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.


E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this, she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to drag him around.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that Christian 'deities' can be perceived as having in a modern society that only invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to totalitarianism.

The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that, this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test.

That being said, the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract noise/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and/or hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany it.

Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45 minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah.


If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.

The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.

This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *


One night on an independent channel famous for showing off-the-wall films was aired this monstrosity. Though tempted to turn it off, we watched it to the bitter end, hoping to see some semblance of redeeming value. Alas, there was none. Absolutely nothing. The film quality was cheap; the soundtrack was muddy; the editing was ridiculous. Then again, there was precious little to salvage. After a few minutes of Cameron Mitchell's doctor character narrating about some patient of his, the viewer is tortured by no plot, pathetic writing, abysmally terrible acting, and an utter lack of cohesion and continuity. The rotting cherry on top of this fetid mess was the most horrendous 'special effects' and 'makeup' to ever disgrace the screen, even for television. The main character stumbles through his role in a dimestore rubber mask and a pair of dishwashing gloves which appear to have been dipped in glue and rolled in beads. Perhaps the poor lighting and gag-worthy film quality were attempting to cover up how bad-to-the-tenth-power the makeup was. One can only hope that at least one deliberate decision was made in the course of this hopelessly amateurish video. Seriously, a handful of three-year-old kids could've produced a better project. At the end, poor Mr. Mitchell returns (how desperate he must've been for money!) and drones out some nonsense that's supposed to connect this pile of crap with the AIDS epidemic. Please spare you and your loved ones the inhuman cruelty of sitting through this. It was so bad, even Mystery Science Theater 3000 couldn't have salvaged it.


This film was in one word amazing! I have only seen it twice and have been hunting it everywhere. A beautiful ensemble of older screen gems who still have that energy. Judy Denchs ability to carry the whole film was amazing. Her subtle chemistry with the knight in stolen armour was great


Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.

John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.

The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power.


Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do!

I was appalled.

Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his 'thumbs up' at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.

What a pity.

Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a 'free' ticket viewing.

Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.

Shame shame shame on what they do!!


I just got back from a screening a couple of hours ago, and I was very happy with the movie when I left it. It's very intense, and the closest I've come to crying in a movie in quite some time. That is a credit to Adam Sandler, who delivers a magnificent performance on many levels, and who probably deserves an Oscar nom for it, were it not coming out so early in the year. Don Cheadle gives his usual superb performance playing the straight man to Adam's disturbed.

There is some humor, but most of it is really only funny in comparison to the tearjerking moments, as Adam deals with his loss and Don struggles to help him. Adam plays two levels very well... when he is mentally stable he is funny and likable, but when he is, well, less stable he's powerful and dark.

I recommend it for anyone who likes intense mental dramas about difficult friendship and loss.


I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.

I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.

I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.

I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.

I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.

This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal.


Have you ever wondered what its like to feel FREE? I am sure that each one of us know the meaning of freedom and never seriously think of using it to our advantage. HARI OM shows the audience what freedom actually means. In this film freedom is described in the form of style represented by Isa's discovery of India. Isa discovers her inner true love when she is in a Rickshaw journey with Mr. HARI OM. She looks at life differently and portrays freedom that every woman restricts in herself when she is in a relationship.

This film is definitely 'worth a watch', and I saw this the first time in Dubai International Film Festival (DIFF), and I left the cinema hall with complete satisfaction.

'Watch it'!


Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck.


Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?

Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist...

But...

The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the 'how we actually got the money' mode and overcomplicated in the 'who done it and why' section at the same time...

In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this....

Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best?

Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.

The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.

The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility.

Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....


'Subconscious Cruelty' has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from 'Subconscious Cruelty' is 'Human Larvae' which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment 'Right Brain/Martyrdom' has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it.'Subconscious Cruelty' is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out.


I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.

The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: 'He made me do it!' Dolemite's cry: '&$*@$ are you for real???' Subtlety was never his strong point.

Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.

But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, 'The Matrix' it is not.

Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations.


Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent!


Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.

I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.


It's a shame that Deliverance is mainly known as the redneck rape movie and for Dueling Banjos. Even people that have seen the film can't get their mind off of that rape scene. It's not as bad as the rape scene in Pulp Fiction. It's certainly not as bad as any female rape scene in just about any movie. People tend to miss the power of the film that contains the infamous buggery scene.

The acting, plot, cinematography, and soundtrack of Deliverance all lend a hand to it's brooding charisma. The backcountry it was shot in is beautiful and is quite in contrast to the dark subject matter. The actors both major and minor make you feel like you are rafting down that river right along with them.

The thing that separates this film from others is the tangible sense of dread that it inspires. Not many films can make you feel this creeped out. Bottom Line: This movie is a classic. I can't really say much more than that.


I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.

Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.

They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.

Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash.

Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.

Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars.


I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni's passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances - and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here - she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual!

By the way, the film's title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars' 'brief encounter' in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion - though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film's abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters - save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety - which include Loren's gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn't deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I've watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result - though essentially low-key - is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.

The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it's interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it's Mastroianni's moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences!


Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.

A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.

In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.

There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.

Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.

One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.

4/10


'Hey, I didn't order no cab!' 'Yeah, well you got one...' What can I say about Hack...what a man among men. He was a heartened ex-cop turned cab driver with a heart of gold. If you were able to (and fortunately for America's TV viewers...one person per week was) penetrate the cold, hard surface of Hack's exterior, you got to see a caring man devoted to vigilante justice. The show was superb, I laughed, I cried, I smiled...all in the same episode. My arms would break out in goosebumps when our dear friend Hack would exit his cab in another dark alley...with nothing more than his fists...ready to avenge a wronged civilian. A smile would break out on my face when the screen showed me a criminal in a dark alley's facial expressions when the Taxi of Justice's headlights illuminated upon his face. Week after week I canceled my duties as president of the Klingon Association to bask in the warmth glow of Hack's brilliance. I have never seen a better show, and I mourned the loss of one of America's greatest treasures when the show was canceled. In other Hack-related news, I would like to announce to the world that my wife and I are expecting Hack Koen to come into the world in about three weeks.


I saw the film at the Nashville Film Festival. It was beautifully done, from cinematography to the acting. It's the story of a father and son, and how they come to appreciate each other during a family crisis. Beautifully written with dialog that never rings false, the film showcases the acting talents of Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, among others in this outstanding cast. The film begins with the aging father (Peter Falk)is trying to figure out why his wife (Olympia Dukakis) has left him. The father presents himself, unannounced, on the doorstep of his son and daughter-in-law. The father and son take off the next day to look at some property and end up taking a classic road trip. They fish, play pool, watch a baseball game, get drunk, get involved in a barroom brawl, and dance with strange women. But more important, they each confront the unspoken tensions that can affect any family. It's the kind of film that touches the heart and makes one appreciate those who are closest to them.


Cameron Diaz is a woman who is married to a judge, played by Harvey Keitel, whose life is fine until an ex shows up and things get a little complicated.. While I was watching this movie there were several times i asked myself why I was doing so..because the movie is so ridiculous and blah and poorly scripted without any believability. Nor does the audience really car what happens..Even the lovely Cameron can't save this one on a scale of one to ten..2


One of my favorites. As a child, growing up in the NY Metro area in the late 60s and early 70s, I was often afforded the opportunity to visit NYC with my grandfather or father, as they conducted business there. The gritty, bustling, human, reality of that city, particularly in winter, have stayed with me.

This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.

And the car chase is simply amazing. At least on par with the one in 'Bullitt', and surpassing the chase in 'The French Connection'. I can watch, time and again, as the suspension comes unstuck on that Plymouth Fury police cruiser barreling toward the GW Bridge in pursuit, as it lurches into that sharp right curve, bouncing and scraping into oncoming traffic. The stunt driving coordinator for that scene did 'Bullitt' and 'The French Connection' as well as many other noatable movie chases. Good acting, too, and a decent plot line. The musical score is edgy and compelling, and the cinematography and direction are top notch. A great, if underrated 1970s cop drama. A keeper. Not out on DVD yet, though.

Comparable in style and content to: The French Connection and Super Fly. Early 1970's cop dramas set in the bleak NYC winter months.


My Architect is a great film about Nathaniel Kahn's search for himself via the legacy of his famous Architect father, Louis Kahn, dead since 1974. The film builds slowly, but perfectly, and what starts out as a seemingly lost fortysomething's identity crisis unfolds into a beautiful tale with much deeper meaning with regard to the importance of love, loss, family and perhaps more importantly, our life's work.

I had never heard of Louis Kahn prior to this film, although I was vaguely familiar with some of his work. Through the words (both good and bad) of Louis Kahn's colleagues, you get a very good sense of what Nathaniel must have felt as memories are recalled and stories retold. Sometimes it seemed as though these people were telling Nathaniel how to feel about his father. As I listened to each recollection, my own opinion of this man would range from beautiful to horrible, sometimes in the span of a moment, so you get a good feel for the rollercoaster that Nathaniel's emotions must have been riding.

The final sequence in Bangladesh totally made the film for me. The reverence of which the people of Bangladesh spoke of Louis Kahn's work tied all the loose ends together nicely for me, and, hopefully, for Nathaniel.

I think Nathaniel Kahn finally found what he was looking for.


If anyone tells you this picture is just terrific they probably have something to do with either making it or profiting from it. This film is a real loser and it copies situations from big budget horror movies and not to mention soundtracks to. I wouldn't recommend this one to my worst enemy. It is a low budget movie with amateur actors. It looks like it was filmed for a film contest. The acting is terrible and it wouldn't surprise me if the script was written by a Hee Haw script writer. My family laughed at it. A Grade ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ all the way. You won't be scared by this one. Here is one little taste of the terrible elements of this film. When the guy gets his toe stomped by Ric White's stupid portrayal of the Reverend James Johnston walking cane. The guys reactions are like if he had an amputation with no pain killer. Watch the DVD extras after you watch the movie. When you see Ric White and others talk so seriously about the movie you will laugh till your stomach hurts. How people will stretch the truth and what they will do to earn a dishonest buck. Don't get fooled like we did and buy this failure.


Two snipers travel deep in the jungles in search for their targets; a slimy South American drug-lord and a prominent general.

Moderately successful at building a brooding atmosphere, Sniper is by most accounts a very solid thriller, taking it's time, establishing it's characters and their plight and climaxing in some good action sequences. Director Llosa isn't always successful at maintaining the sombre mood and could have tightened the story somewhat; some detours here don't add up to much. But this film is far better than his Stallone/Stone travesty The Specialist.

Billy Zane, usually incredibly tiresome, does surprisingly well as the inexperienced Sniper teamed up with veteran Berenger. As for Berenger this film proved to be his last good big budget Hollywood venture. He can do these kind of roles in his sleep and he's very convincing here, reprising the role twice more in direct to DVD sequels.


House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.


i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)

can't be explained - must see!


I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.

The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.

The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).

To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.


Couldn't believe it! Clipped sentences? Good grief! Know what? All true! Real people ever talk like this? Don't think so. Good girl! Stout fellow! Stiffen upper lip! Only reason given movie 2 instead of 0 Gary Cooper such a dish. Movie as a whole ridiculous unless you like watching endless biplane dogfights. Seemed endless, anyway. Think all Franchot Tone's dialogue dubbed. When Crawford and Young make a special effort to sound British they come over as Irish. Handy tip - we Brits clip words, not sentences. And somehow we manage to draaaaaaaawl at the same time. But that's only if we've been to a really good public (that's private to you) school.


For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..

I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his ' The Big Boss' aka 'Fists of Fury' , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!!

I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea)

I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !!

After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ???

Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way 'this is not Bruce Lee' ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!!

It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!!

And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third !

After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.


I am continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action. What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were, Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine wines and cheeses, they take time to mature.

Bring Surface and Invasion back - P L E A S E !!!!!!!


Castle in the sky is undoubtedly a Hayao Miyazaki film. After seeing it for the first time I'm glad to say that it doesn't disappoint. On the contrary, you get your time's worth, which means (as to what Miyazaki's films are concern), that is nothing less than excellent!

Produced early in his cinematic career, Castle in the Sky anticipates many of the trade marks in his later movies, with strong (but young) female characters, forced to grow up due to external circumstances, helped out by very interesting (and some times lovable) supporting characters. And, of course, the usual battle of nature versus civilization, flying machines (lots of it!!), beautiful painted sceneries  but alas, no pigs ( at least that i've noticed, after all I have only seen it once). Never the less, Miyazaki had already got his theatrical debut two years earlier, with Nausicãa, which was a dress rehearsal for Princess Mononoke, his magnum opus. Castle in the Sky is set a bit a part from these two, with a soft action packed first 30 minutes, resembling his TV series Conan, and his directed episodes of Meitantei Holmes. In here we are introduced to Sheeta, a girl who literally falls from the sky, only to be found by Pazu, a young boy working in a little countryside mining town. Intrigued by her amnesia and suspecting a connection between her and the mysterious flying city of Laputa, Pazu is set on helping her find out where she came from, whilst escaping the army and a gang of air pirates. As the movie progresses, the plot gets heavier and much more interesting, revealing Myiazaki at his best.

The sound track is very reminiscent of Spirited Away, (or vice versa, as Castle in the sky was produced first), and much like its director, Joe Hisaishi _the composer_ starts with a very light score, that gets more complex and beautifully fitting as the plot goes forward!

A note to the English dubbing, with a good interpretation from the two lead stars, although Anna Paquin's Sheeta has a very thick accent (which the actress still had at that point in her career), and a heads up for Mark Hamil as Muska, making up for a delighting yet devilish villain!

Don't miss this one people!


The first of two Jim Thompson adaptations released in 1990 (the other being the more well-known GRIFTERS), AFTER DARK has all of Thompson's hallmarks: dangerous women, the confidence game, and characters that are either not as dim as others suspect them of being, or not as harmless.

Jason Patric is superb as a former boxer disqualified from the sport for life due to an incident in the ring (director James Foley uses RAGING BULL-esquire sequences to flesh out the back story) and the too-little-seen Rachel Ward also delivers a great performance. But Bruce Dern is the film's secret weapon: his sweet-talking grifter Uncle Bud subtly commands each of his scenes.

there's almost no comic relief in this film, so watch it prepared to be sucked into the void.


Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in 'Sands of Iwo Jima') tried his hand at a big musical with 'I Dream of Jeanie.' Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.

Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, 'O Susannah.' Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.

This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.

But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.

'I Dream of Jeanie' apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.

This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.


Unbelievable. 'Philosophy'. 'Depth'. 'Genius'. 'Masterpiece'. People must have seen another 'Oldboy' because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of 'Kraapola' which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.

The 'depth' of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, 'Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone', the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once 'great art'. In short, yuck.

2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though.


This movie was over-shadowed by 'The Jackal' (Bruce Willis, Richard Gere) which was released the same year. Having seen both films, I can honestly say this is the superior film.

Granted, the production value of 'The Jackal' was very good, it probably had a substantially bigger budget. However, 'The Assignment' is well written and has a fascinating story. Aiden Quinn is flawless in dual roles. Aiden Quinn and director Christian Duguay did a great job of establishing a deep and multi-layered relationship between the title character and his family. I particularly liked the ending.

I was reminded of the Jack Ryan character in the Tom Clancy movies. Both are Naval officers thrown into unbelievably dangerous roles as they covertly work on behalf of National security. And yet, both Harrison Ford and Aidan Quinn reveal their respective characters as heros who manage to be both virile and gentle. They have a genuine tenderness and vulnerability in their relationships with their families.

What I don't understand is how the opinions of all who have posted on this movie (myself included) can be so much more positive than the luke-warm reception the film has received. This is a movie that has enough complexity and subtlety that it remains compelling after multiple viewings. If you are a fan of espionage-genre films, I recommend 'The Assignment' enthusiastically.


Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the 'betrayal'. If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to 'safe counterculture themes', to wit, 'Che cool', 'Wall Street bad', 'Republican= Nazi', 'Bush ex Hitler', 'NRA is worse than KGB', 'Christians are fanatics and stupid', etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!


This film is like 'The Breakfast Club' meets 'Mad City.' It's got one plot twist after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like movies that 'go all the way' with regards to violence, then don't watch the last twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not faint of heart. Highly recommended.


It is the best movie on acting I have ever seen. All the artists are old Turkish theater actors, they are magnificent in this movie.It is sometimes said that 'They do not act, they live it', you can really see this in this movie. The director is also competent, you cannot see lots of moving cameras around but the positions of the cameras are also good. But after the acting, the most outstanding part is the content of the movie. It gives happiness, enthusiasm, desire to live, importance of real friends to people. We all started to live individually nowadays, in this film you see that there are someone other then us. And most importantly, you see that the most honorable feeling in the world is love, loving your friends, loving your darling. All people should see this movie...


This is probably one of my favorites so far, although I have the first one and have seen Curse, Legacy, and vs. Demonic Toys. The only one better than this one is PM vs. DT. Curse is the worst one in the series, Than the first one, and then its Legacy. I recommend people to see this and vs. DT. Those ones who say this stinks are so wrong, the story is well written and it is a sweet movie. This is a classic movie even younger kids can watch and not be as scared when watching the others. Well this is my review, you can call me Gipdac,( its easy to know where that came from: 101 Dalmatians series, you can watch it on Toon Disney at 4:00 A.M.). Oh and don't laugh, I'm a guy, you will see more of my reviews in good time. If you want to know why I watch it? I'm 12! Word of advice: Have a mental meal, arrrrroooooooooo! I also agree with you motter-1, but why people like the others is because they're more thrilling than horror, and because the puppets are made to look scarier. Also, you can call me Gipdac.


In a not totally successful attempt to be taken seriously, and move into 'adult' films, Mr. Hughes gives us this film about a young married couple. True, it's got every cliche in the book in it, silly fantasy stuff and all that, but more importantly- it's got Elizabeth McGovern.

Clearly the best actress to have ever appeared in a John Hughes film, she lends a weight to it that elevates the sometimes silly material. Kevin Bacon (and his hair) is pretty good as her husband, but McGovern steals the movie with her quiet true moments of honesty. The 'teen film' fun that worked so well in other Hughes films falls flat here- like a favorite uncle whose jokes made you laugh when you were 9, but keeps telling them when you are 15 and you wish he'd find some new material. But I keep going back to McGoverns performance, because it's truly moving. Mr. Hughes most interesting films to me have real actors in them (Some Kind of Wonderful, Breakfast Club) and when his material bumps up against a true talent, some wonderful things can happen. If only he'd trust that it doesn't have to be tarted up with the silly fantasy stuff.


I guess that after Leonard Nimoy had been successful in directing 'the Search for Spock' and 'the Voyage Home,' William Shatner thought he could direct too. Although he is a competent actor, he shows here that he's just not a good director.

Actually, this movie is hard evidence to support the arguments of Trekkies who say that William Shatner being an arrogant egomaniac. For although his character, Captain James Kirk, was always arguably the most important role in the original 'Star Trek,' it seems in this movie that he is the heart of the movie, the two other most important characters, Captain Spock and Doctor Leonard McCoy, are just there to support him, and the other characters are just there to add comic relief.

The plot is that some emotional Vulcan outcast named Sybok is mindmelding with people and releasing the pain bottled up inside them from that traumatic event early in life that changed them forever. Grateful, they join him in his quest to make the entire world free of pain and thus at peace. Sybok and his followers commandeer the building in which a peace conference between a Human, Klingon, and Romulan diplomat is taking place. This lures the still-being-constructed Enterprise there, since none of Starfleet's other ships have 'experienced commanders' (honestly, with how Starfleet is run, the Klingons and Romulans should have conquered them years ago). Sybok adds the Enterprise's crew, save Spock (who is revealed to be secret brothers with Sybok), McCoy, and Kirk. Sybok orders that the Enterprise take off to 'the center of the universe' to meet 'God,' who apparently every race has a word for. However, it turns out that this is only a minor entity when he demands the use of the Enterprise and Kirk asks, 'what does God need with a starship.' The entity is destroyed, but not before Sybok, realizing he's been lied to for years, sacrifices his life and earns Spock's respect in death after the Enterprises photon torpedos destroy the entity and inexplicably Sybok as well.

OK, science fiction movies are not known for realism, but at some point, rationality must be enforced. Why do people follow Sybok just for releasing their pain? Why are all humanoids defined by a single traumatic event? I've certainly led a trauma-free life. Why doesn't Kirk try his crew for mutiny and treason after they join Sybok? What was the point of Sybok sacrificing himself when the torpedos were going to kill the entity anyway?

So the plot's weak. Another problem is that Sybok, though played well by Lawrence Luckinbill, is poorly portrayed. Just because he's an emotional Vulcan doesn't mean he should act exactly like a Human religious fanatic. Shatner (who was a co-writer as well as the director) could have at least developed dialog fitting for an emotional Vulcan. I guess he feels that any emotional being talks like us. Gee, I guess that means that Klingons should say 'isn't' and 'don't' more often than 'is not' and 'do not.' And the Cardassians shouldn't prolong their sentences because they like to talk (yeah, I know it's sad that I know this). Please... every ST race uses unique dialog. Why is Sybok the exception.

The only thing to not complain about is the acting. I've always known 'Star Trek' to have great actors, and this movie is not exception. Cudos also go to Leonard Nimoy, for it had to be difficult to play the dispassionate Spock in his old age.

Some other things I didn't like:

Shatner and the late DeForrest Kelly twice show what bad singers they are by singing 'Row, Row, Row your Boat' in this movie. I guess Shatner wished to silence his detractors of his singing ability. What he did was prove their point.

Uhura does a fan dance while wearing nothing but tree bark to draw some men into a booby trap. After all, the dreams of all us men are filled with images of middle-aged plump women dancing naked.

Comedy's all well and good as long as it doesn't affect the nature of 'Star Trek' too much, but when Scotty bumps into an object on the Enterprise and KOs himself, it's kinda goin' overboard.

Kirk is the only crew member who can reject Sybok's offer of releasing their inner pain and see through the God imposter's deception. Not even Spock can manage either of these? Perhaps this scenes were valantines from Shatner to his character, as many suspect.

The concept of an entity posing as God had been used in 'Star Trek' before this movie more than once. Be creative, Shatner.

Speaking of uncreativeness, I didn't purticularly care for the ripping off of the music of 'Star Trek: the Next Generation.'

All in all, pretty bad 'Trek' movie. If you're a Trekkie, watch it once because it's 'Star Trek.' Otherwise, watch 'Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan.' It's way better.


Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.

Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.

The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.

I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it.


This is the crappiest film I have ever seen but in all fairness it's watchable and rather funny. I don't think the film-makers intended it to be your typical Hollywood blockbuster quality. It's just a stupid film about a serial killer who gets doused in a load of toxic waste causing a reaction with him and the snow (as it's the middle of winter). He then turns into a killer snowman which is enough to to make you laugh on it's own. This film is really stupid but it's funny. The killings are hilarious.I wouldn't advise you to go and buy it (like I did -the cover looked good!)but if it happens to be on TV one night and you're up for a laugh then stick it on.


Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.


In Mexico this movie was aired only in PayTV. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life, is a true example about a good German and specially, about a good man. The conversations between Tukur's character and the Nazi prosecutor are specially interesting. A true ideas' war: two different Germans, both with faith in there believes. Bonhoeffer was a very complex person: man, freedom fighter, boyfriend, churchman and a great intellectual; Ulrich Tukur is outstanding as Bonhoeffer. I recommended this film a lot, specially in this difficult times for the planet. In Mexico we don't know a lot about Pastor Bonhoeffer life and legacy, this is a great work for rescue a forgotten hero.


BORN TO BOOGIE is a real 'find'--though a rock fan for nearly thirty years, I only first saw the film a few days ago, and rank it among the top rock films of all time; the music's terrific (the cream of T. Rex) and the visuals consistently exciting and unusual, leaving this viewer craving any more past directorial efforts of Ringo Starr, who did a fine job here. If you love the music, you'll be in T. Rextasy throughout, as Marc Bolan really is the star of the piece, front and center. Even the fact that some songs are repeated doesn't matter a bit: different venues, costuming, musical arrangements, and bizarre visual concepts are all used to lend different textures and a great deal of upbeat humor to what could have ended up as 'only' a concert film in other hands. As rich and full packed as BORN TO BOOGIE is, the film's only about an hour long, but what is there is totally satisfying. Therein lies my only criticism--the video package states something like 71 minutes, and at least one online source claims the film to be 67 minutes, but apparently it's more like 61 minutes of rocking fun.