'Tarzan and His Mate', the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of 'Tarzan the Ape Man'. Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.

The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.

Most people consider 'Tarzan and His Mate' superior to the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man'. Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.

Like the first film, 'Tarzan and His Mate' has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see.


When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.

The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.

I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.

The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.

I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully cliché it all was.

And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to 'spoil' the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor 'Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same.' cannot be used as an explanation for everything.

This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.


I found out about this film because Jewish Ben Chaplin from Game On was in it. Game On is a funny British sitcom and apparently he left because he wanted to break into Hollywood and star in this film. He failed thank God.

The film is a very simple romantic comedy with Janeane Garofalo playing an ugly woman who uses her neighbour Uma Thurman to date Ben Chaplin because she thinks Ben Chaplin won't like her because she's ugly. The film is just bad for so many reasons. The plot is unbelievably predictable from the overtly slapstick bits to the serious mushy bits: ugh just that montage where all three of them are having fun and then the photograph bit. Those two scenes made me cringe! Janeane's character is sickeningly arrogant (and guessing from her role as stand-up 'comedienne' and arch-feminist is in real life too). She claims that the film is 'anti-feminist' when in fact it's just realistic. Men more often than not go for looks over personality. It's interesting to note her hypocrisy too. She'd been a feminist and 'comedienne' for years before taking this role and then suddenly decides afterwards that the film was bad. I imagine she hated the idea and script of this film before it was released but she made sure she kept that quiet so she could get paid for this travesty of a film. I mean come on! She acted in it for Heaven's sake! What this film was really was anti-men if anything. It portrays men as stupid animals whose brains are in their groins with the men doing stupid things to attract the attention of Uma Thurman's character Noelle.

There are other bad things about this film too like Ben Chaplin's character being the British man every American girl finds cute and Jamie Foxx being the token black best friend of Chaplin and of course Foxx had to try and mimic his accent a few times for good measure. Is that the best the script writers could come up with? Blimey they've never done that before except with every Hugh Grant and Dudley Moore film ever made. There's also a truly awful phone sex scene which is just grotesque and proves how cheap the film is. The other comments on here all say how Janeane Garofalo isn't ugly but is actually beautiful. Erm was I watching the same film as they were? She's certainly no looker and the only good thing about this film was that she was rightly cast as the ugly one. Although having said that, I fail to see the appeal of Uma Thurman as well: she's lanky and gaunt looking.

I guarantee three things about this film if you've never watched it:

You will know what the ending will be;

You will find the phone sex scene painfully embarrassing and;

You will be bored after ten minutes.

Watch at your own peril.


Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of 'force' to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around.


I was lying on my bed, with a really bad cold or flu or whatever. I figure maybe I'd kill some time watching some horror movies my mom bought for me a little while ago. I wish I never picked this movie! After I watched it I felt even more sick and I wanted to throw up. Afterwords(when I got better of course) I did some research on Dennis L.Rader and I noticed that the Dennis in the movie was nothing like the real one. I hope that no one ever watches this movie but if they ever do don't eat or you'll feel the way I felt after I first watched it. I think you would have a better time watching The Santa Claus 3. At least that movie had better reviews on this site.


I had never seen this movie before it aired on a local cable sci-fi network. It reminded me of the Irwin Allen TV series of the late 60's (Time Tunnel etc). Excellent effects (they beat Star Trek 5 done 20 years later, but then that wasn't very hard to accomplish).

I found the script very intriguing and mature for this type of production. They would have needed a few touch ups to tie some loose ends on the characters' level, but for a kid movie its surprisingly interesting (especially the the glimpse at futuristic euro- politics, surprisingly similar to today's European Union!)

The plot is indeed reminiscent of Twilight Zone in general (as other users have pointed), but in this case it's a compliment.

Great sets, by the way!

7/10


This movie is one of the funniest, saddest and most accurate portrayals of the mentality that seems to have pervaded the Balkans yet again, 45 years after the time depicted. All the usual characters and conflicts are presented with such anger, sadness and love combined that it is impossible to decide whether crying or laughing would be the more appropriate response. The accuracy of portrayal and the timelessness of the types, however, make it for a great film to watch if one wants to understand a little bit of what drove ex-Yugoslavia to its madness. In fact, no diplomat dealing with the region should attempt anything until they saw this movie, and its twin, *Maratonci trce pocasni krug.* Did I mention it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen?


This is a cartoon series where most of the action takes place in the human body where the actors are vitamins, viruses, blood cells etc. I will not try to explain it in more details, you will simply have to see it for yourself: You will not be disappointed.

I remember watching this as a kid in the 80s (with Swedish voices). I have talked with a few people who were also children in the 80s and they loved it also! I must admit that the education-part of the episodes didn't get through to me at a conscious level but the whole idea of educating children while they have fun is wonderful. I have recently seen a few episodes; there is a humour and heart in it that is hard to find in other children programs nowadays.

5/5


This is a great compendium of interviews and excerpts form the films of the late sixties and early 70s that were a counter movement to the big Studio Films of the late sixties. Directed by Ted Demme, it is obviously a labor of love of the films of the period, but it gives short shrift to the masterpieces of the times.

Many of the filmmakers of this period were influenced by Truffaut, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, and of course John Cassavetes. Unfortunately the documentary logging in at 138 minutes is too short! The film is rich with interviews and opinions of filmmakers. Some of the people interviewed are: Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdonovich, Ellen Burstyn, and Roger Corman, Bruce Dern, Sydney Pollack, Dennis Hopper, and Jon Voight.

Bruce Dern has a moment of truth when he says that he and Jack Nicholson may not have been as good looking as the other stars that came before them but they were 'interesting'. This summarizes the other areas of this period of film-making in American history.

The filmmakers were dealing with a lack of funding from the Studios because they were expressing unconventional attitudes about politics, sex, drugs, gender and race issues, and Americas involvement in overseas conflicts like the Vietnam War.

There is a great interview with Francis Coppola saying that he got the chance to make 'The Conversation' because the producers knew he had been trained by Roger Corman to make a movie with nothing so they bankrolled his film.

Another interview is with Jon Voight who was directed by Hal Ashby in 'Coming Home' a clear anti-war film about a crippled soldier immersing himself back into society after his facing battle. Voight talks about how his working methods helped him achieve an emotional telling point when Ashby said that they were doing a 'rehearsal' take and it ended up being the take used in the film- it was better because it was so un-rehearsed and not drained of its freshness by being over-rehearsed.

There are also many fine excerpts from Al Pacino's break-through film 'The Panic in Needle Park', and interviews from Dennis Hopper on the making of 'Easy Rider', and interviews from Sydney Pollack about making films.

All in all the documentary is a fine jumping off point for any film lover who wants to see great examples of what the new voices in film were like in the Seventies. Many of the Sundance Folks, where this film made a big splash, are unaware of just how much the Independent Film Maker today owes to the films of John Cassavetes, Milos Foreman, William Friedkin, and Roger Corman.

Rent it from your favorite shop. It will at least perk you up to some films you may not have seen before and can enjoy today. Amazon.com has it for as little as $11.50, if you want to buy right out.


Having been a Godzilla fan for many years, Gamera was to me a cheap knockoff to capitalize on the success of Toho's #1 kaiju star. ATTACK OF THE MONSTERS was for me at the time (1975) an almost painful viewing experience.

Last weekend, I attended the annual Godzilla fest, known as G-FEST, where Carl Craig, one of the stars of GAMERA vs. VIRAS, made an appearance. Of course, they featured this movie. It was one of the most hilarious bad movies ever made. Of course, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it. In one scene, for example, the boy scouts held prisoner on board the alien space craft manage to escape by distracting the not-too-bright aliens. When they realize they've been duped, one of them says, 'That's funny...I think those kids lied to us.' Not even PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE can boast that kind of dialog.

This may not be GODZILLA or even GAMERA 3, but this one is a decent enough time waster, if you watch it in the right frame of mind.

However, if you want top quality kaiju entertainment, check out the recently released GAMERA 3.

Rating: **1/2 out of *****


I have watched this movie countless times, and never failed to be charmed by it's homely simplicity, sincerity and goodness. Great characterizations by all of the cast, and the lovely little steam trains that play a such an important supporting role.I confess I fell in love with Roberta in 1970, and she still touches me today. Shown on TV in New Zealand on Christmas day, the nicest present I could have had.


I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly 'made-for-TV' movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era  would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated!

This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.

While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two 'veteran' actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse 'knocks' on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.

Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.

Grade: ** out of *****


Basic summary: Ipswitch used to be a community of witches and escaped the Salem witch hunts by forming a covenant of secrecy. The first born males descended from these families have supernatural powers, and must come to terms with the seductive, addictive nature of using those powers.

Well, I usually give movies the benefit of the doubt and start from a 5, going from there:

Production: -1 for very obvious audio out of sync, +1 for nicely done special effects, the darkling actually gave me chills, +0.5 for nice colorization (I like the dull blue), -0.5 for the stupid sound track, +0.5 for the opening sequence -- I'm a sucker for stylish compositing and flashy title design.

Story / Script: +1 for decent main idea, -0.5 for DBZ/Matrix/Street Fighter ripoff/pastiche, -1 for not explaining some plot threads very well (spiders, darkling), -1 for boring, predictable ending, -1 for gratuitous exposition, both as words on the screen and as bland monologuing

Acting / Characterization: -0.5 for bad bad acting, although it gets a little better as the film progresses, -1 for lack of character development, especially among all the females

Other: +1 for gratuitous male and female nudity, which is fun to watch, and +0.5 for no sex scenes, which for this genre are usually done very badly and end up being boring rather than hot, +1 for hitting its target audience, teenage sci-fi/horror/thriller fans, even though this movie is not exclusively any of those genres.

Conclusion: This is not a 'film,' this is a MOVIE. There's really nothing to analyze, it's just good, (relatively) clean fun. Lots of really attractive actors and actresses. Lots of boys fighting in the style of DBZ and Street Fighter. If you like cute actors and actresses, supernatural special effects, and/or mindlessly fun plots, this movie is for you. If you prefer Oscar-worthy, exquisitely-produced film masterpieces with tons of multi-layered, allegorical plot threads and groundbreaking visualization techniques, you probably won't like this film.

Using my twisted logic, this movie gets a 4/10.


This movie is by far the worst movie ever, The story line is weak and never shows what happens to the people after the 20 was left they hands. This really bugs me. It drags on and on with out any meaning, very boring. The only good thing was the cast, WOW, lots of big time actors and actress in it. But besides that it was horrible, terrible and repulsive, do yourself a favor, do not watch it.

I gave it a 1 out of 10


Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****


The storyline was okay. Akshay Kumar was good as always and that was the only good thing about the movie. Kareena Kapoor looked bad. There was so hue and cry over her size zero but she did not looked good leaner. I don't know why the hell did Anil Kapoor accepted such a bad role. There was nothing much to do for him in the movie. Just because it is a Yashraj film does not means that an actor should accept the role however bad it is. Said Ali khan was alright. I think that it is high time that Indian directors and producers start thinking of Indian customers as intelligent lot. What are we ? fools!!!! What do they think, they will show 2 men taking on a SWAT squad to teeters and we will believe them. Is the Indian police so stupid that they are trying to nab some criminals.... they take an entire squad of 100 + policemen and no one was there to surround the palace. The action was crap and I have never seen such bad action. Akshay Kumar was between a circle of 30-40 policemen all shooting at him..... and he shooting back at them. None of the policemen's bullet touched him but he killed all the policemen. Crap. CRAP.

I think the fight director who thought of this scene should take retirement.

I strongly recommend NOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE.


I was one of the few who went out of my way to see this in the theater. I've thought about it frequently ever since. After two DVD viewings I'm glad to say it held up perfectly. Like any great comedy, I laughed more on each viewing, both in anticipation of gags, but also after catching things missed before.

Mike Judge does very well with creating insanely comedic characters and fitting them into their world so they make sense. In Office Space, the environment make the characters believable. Idiocracy's future gives him liberty to write unbelievably dumb characters and make them work. I'll be waiting to see if they release a better DVD with some actual features before buying it. But this movie deserves the support on DVD not offered to it at the theater.


Plot in a nutshell - Duchess (voice of Eva Gabor) is the well polished single mother cat of three little kittens. When their owner, the wealthy elderly woman known as Madame Adelaide, realizes that her time is running out she decides to write up her will, leaving everything she has to her cats, which will then go to her butler Edgar when the cats pass on. Edgar overhears this and is deeply offended by the idea that the cats would get everything before him, and plots to destroy Duchess and her kittens; he drops sleeping pills in their supper one night and then leaves them stranded in the French countryside. Out of their element, Duchess and her kittens befriend a street smart stray cat known as Thomas O'Malley (voice of Phil Harris who did the voice of the big bear Balloo in the Jungle Book); after making a pass at Duchess, unaware that she is a single mother, O'Malley decides to escort them back home, with Duchess genuinely falling for O'Malley as the usual codependent surrogate family bond develops; chaos and mayhem ensues, culminating in a violent clash between O'Malley, his brother cats from the streets and Edgar. Also features appearances by British geese, American southern hound dogs (what they were doing in France is anyone's guess), a mouse who sounds a lot like the rabbit from 'Alice In Wonderland' (he was in fact voiced by the same guy who voiced Winnie the Pooh) and a horse.

Sometimes slow paced but still enjoyable Disney venture. Features the memorable 'Everybody Wants To Be A Cat' musical piece sung by the late Scatman Crothers (better known to 1980s fans as the voice of Jazz on Transformers). Of course, if this was being made now, it would probably be a dark social commentary on class division represented by the divide between well bred & well fed Duchess and the street born O'Malley.


Touching Bollywood epic melodrama about a 10 year-old girl who finds out that she's adopted, and is determined to find her birth mother. The film's major success is the performance of P.S. Keerthana, who plays the girl. The first half of the film is very good. There are a few really good songs, too, especially the number that introduces the protagonist. Unfortunately, the film's second half, which takes place in war-torn Sri Lanka, feels like an entirely different, and disappointing movie. It's big on explosions and special effects, with Sri Lankan soldiers and rebels dodging grenades, running from fireballs, and being yanked by stunt wires. All the film can offer as insight are cheap platitudes like, 'Some day there must come peace' and 'Perhaps the children will find a way'. The final sequence, where the daughter and mother are reunited, is good, but so over-the-top with the music and a well-timed downpour that it feels like a cheat. I know, I know, it's all in the style of Bollywood. But this is a story where big moments simply detract from the simple, powerful central story. Bollywood could certainly use a little restraint at times, too.


I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.

But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.

Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.

It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.

After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.

I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old 'political' cliches.


This is by far the most incredible movie I have seen in a long time. The actors gave wonderful portrayals of the characters in the movie. The story was accurately portrayed. The story starts out with a young woman from the British Isles and her father traveling by steamboat to Nauvoo, Illinois. She has become a member of the LDS Church and he has not. He thinks she is ridiculous for making the trip and is discouraging. She encourages him to read about Joseph Smith, the Prophet. This is where the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith begins. The movie accurately portrays his life and some of the history of the LDS Church at the same time. It was graphic at times, but was needed. The emotional expression was very believable, which caused my emotions to spill out. Filming was awesome. The way in which the story was presented was touching. After the movie was over, we just sat there unable to moved. I was stunned. For people who know very little of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, I would encourage you to see this. If nothing else but to gain some understanding of his life. For those who are members of the Church, I would encourage you to see it. It will increase your testimony of this most incredible man. This is a must see.


IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote 'character?') The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall.


Being advertised as the most expensive movie ever made in the Czech Republic, it automatically makes the you think it will be over glorified and clichéd (out of fear of the budget). However with a budget of 8 Million and half the movie in English it was not exactly a big budget, high risk movie.

What we have a grand epic tale centered around the friendship of two people, the younger Karel and the older Frantisek . As pilots in the Czech air force when the Germans invade before the beginning of world war II they escape the country to England to joined the RAF.

Their friendship becomes strained through the love of the same woman. However there is a bond of friendship that goes beyond merely being friendly. Their friendship is an elegant metaphor for the attitude of the Czech people and their country. Remember they were not the winners, the defeated the Germans only to be invaded by the Russians.

Funny, exciting, intriguing, beautiful, sad and illuminating this movie is one of my favourite war movies. Most of all I like the way they make fun of the British in a way that is amazingly affectionate and gives an amazing insight into the way the British military fought WWII.

Forget the recent American efforts (Peal Harbour, Saving Private Ryan), this is the best WWII movie for a long time.


If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't)

There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America!


The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience.

Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'.

The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.

One and a half stars.

P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.


Wow, here it finally is; the action 'movie' without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly 'Matrix' without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.


Well, I'll be honest: It is not exactly a Sholay. But you cant get a Sholay every week. In fact, you could see distinct signatures of 'not without my Daughter'(Sally Field, 1991) in this movie. However, as most 'inspired' movies go, this one was a well-inspired one, well handled and well done. Nana Patekar, as usual, tends to overdo his hysterics, but all others are commendable. Specially so about Dipti Naval: Saw her after a long time, but she hasn't lost any of her grace. In fact, she has performed much better that when I last saw her. Another one of the Bollywood stars that seem to grow more beautiful as they age?

All in all, a nice watch.


This is one of those movies that go out of print and are very expensive on eBay. This movie is a little-known, fairly amateurish flick that has the strong advantage of being the only movie that Shannon Doherty appears in multiple nude scenes (looking very seductive, I might add). It also has the minor advantage of being popular in the fetish Shannon Doherty and smoking fetish arenas. It's a fairly mediocre attempt at a horror/drama/whodunit movie. It tries a little misdirection, but you can see what's coming a mile away. Shannon does a decent job with her role, but the woman playing her sister is straight out of amateur-night, as is Shannon's husband character. Avoid, unless you're one of the groups I mention above. Now, let's hit eBay and see if we can unload this thing. 8)


someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.

please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.


'Mechenosets' is one of the most beautiful romantic movies I've ever seen. The name of the film can be translated in English as 'the sword-bearer'. The main hero (Sasha) was born with one exceptional ability: he can protect himself with the extremely sharp sword which emerges from under the skin in his hand. At first side he can seem one more foolish superhero from the senseless movie about unreal events and feelings. But it is not about Mechenosets. He hardly can be even called the anti-hero. I think he is just a person who lost the purport in his life and faith in good, justice and love. In his life he has never met someone who could understand and love him (except his mother). Every his step is stained with blood; he takes revenge on everybody for his gift which became a damnation for him. And suddenly he meets her. She doesn't need the idle talks and explanations. She loves him for what he is. She doesn't care what he did. The fact that he's next to her is more important than anything else. But soon she finds out his secret: he kills two people (her ex-boyfriend and his bodyguard) to protect her before her very eyes. Even after that she couldn't escape her feelings. They try to run but it's hart to hide. Finally they have a serious car accident. He is caged; she is in a mental hospital. They don't know anything about each other, but she believes that he'll save her. He surmounts a lot of obstacles but finally finds her. They run again but they aren't invulnerable. She is wounded, she needs a rest, but police almost catch them. He doesn't know what to do, they drive into a corner, and then his sword begins to cut down trees, helicopter around them, but there is no need for it, because she is already dead in his arms, and he is the lonely person in the whole world again.


GUTS OF A BEAUTY is a bit better than its predecessor GUTS OF A VIRGIN. Although this film isn't really a sequel in the sense that it has absolutely nothing to do with the first installment, I did find BEAUTY to be a little stronger and better put together all-the-way-around than VIRGIN...but then again, that's not really saying much.

BEAUTY starts off as a pretty rough and straight-faced exploit film. A couple of Yakuza cats are holding a young woman prisoner and begin gang raping her in pretty brutal fashion. As this nastiness is going on, the head guy tells the girl that they did the same to her sister and sold her into slavery in Africa, and that they're gonna do the same to her. They then shoot her up with some drugs and rape her some more. She somehow gets away and ends up at a clinic where the nurse there listens to her sob story. The rapee ends up freaking out from the stress of her prior experience and commits suicide. The clinic worker, moved by the young lady's story, decides to take revenge on the gang by seducing one of the lower-level guys and trying to hypnotize him to make him kill the Yakuza leaders. This whole plan backfires, so now Ms. Vigilante-Clinic-Worker gets exposed to much the same treatment that our original rapee got - only worse (some pretty rough butt-rape ensues along with the pre-requisite gang rape...). She too is drugged, but the drug has a strange side effect on our seemingly hapless victim ----- it turns her into a raging hermaphroditic BLOOD DEMON!!! (no sh!t, that's what really happens!!!) This is when BEAUTY really takes off with some pretty f!cking insane kill scenes - including a very classy chest-burst-rape that looks like a cross between ALIEN and a bad porn, and my favorite - a head-engulfed-by-demon-vagina kill (complete with demon vagina-slime...)that has to be seen to be believed...

Definitely some promising stuff going on in GUTS OF A BEAUTY, but still very disjointed feeling. BEAUTY almost feels like two different films being forced together in a non-compatible way. Still, I have to give the film credit - the rape scenes are very rough and misogynistic, and the kill scenes are just totally off the wall. A solid 7/10 for another crazy J-horror 'classic'.


I really enjoyed watching Hell to Pay. I've been a fan of Westerns for as long as I can remember and this one reminded me of a lot of the Westerns from the 1960s (even though I was too young to have seen them in their first run). The one thing that bothered me about the movie was the constant music. It was distracting at times. One thing I did notice, and I wonder how many other fans of Gunsmoke noticed, was the name of Buck Taylor's character. It was a play on Doc Adams' name from Gunsmoke. Instead of Gaylan Adams, Buck Taylor used Adam Galen. I wonder if that was his choice or Chris McIntyre's? Anyway, I would recommend this movie to fans of Westerns. Don't expect anything too 'deep'. Just plain old entertainment.


The English Patient is one of those films that mostly deserve all the highest praise. I say, most, because this movie, albeit very serious, intense, deep and really thoughtful, still suffers some drawbacks. First and foremost, why, oh why are the modern films so long? This one lasts for more than two hours and from time to time it becomes really hard to concentrate and follow the extremely serious plot. I say, if the film were an hour shorter, that would serve it only good. However, we have what we have. The winner of several Oscars, The English Patient is still very good. It is a deep, insightful treatise of human soul, love and betrayal, war and cowardice, violence and bravery. Ralph Fiennes is a smashing superb actor. His hero, neurotic and silent, is an enigmatic person, ready for everything only to save the life of his lover. He is great, even though half the time he is a deformed cripple. He is the strongest link here. Juliette Binoche is as usual very convincing and sweet. She adds a lot with her excellent play and the love story plot with that Sikh officer. Willem Defoe, Colin Firth, Christine Scott Thomas are all here, all enormous and all very strong. And then there is desert of Egypt, then there is deep, cloudless sky, green groves of Italy. The nature is here, even when people die, bombs roar, land mines explode. War is here, too. It is obvious, terrible, and bloody. Then, there are corpses, horrible gory bodies, then nude bodies, adultery and all. I do not know what to say. So much of a splendid actors' work, so much of realism, so much of brutality that war brings. This is not a film for relaxation. It makes you think.


Alan Alda plays real-life 'Sports Illustrated' writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from ****


Not the best of actors' movies.The director has concentrated on projected actor's stardom rather than giving a good entertainer. May be hero himself, his family and his sincere fans can enjoy it.But definitely it's not worth for neutral audience.The fight sequences are a total comedy.The dance moves in the song sequences are pathetic. The music is average.This film was the biggest flop for the actor. Inspite of the hype created over the movie, the movie failed miserably. Don't even think of watching this move even if you want to kill time. You can watch some cartoon instead.A good movie buff cannot digest this crap for 2 1/2 hours.


This is an exceptional film. It is part comedy, part drama, part suspense. The dialog is exquisite. Most of the actors and actresses were very famous in their time, and for good reason. You will probably recognize someone, even if you don't usually watch older movies. They are also each in a role that particularly suits their talents.

One correction to make on another users comment is that two people, not one, are announced to die in the accident. Maybe the unlucky two are a reflection of what the writer considers important in life. The movie is too engaging to worry about who it is until it happens.

The story is ahead of its time, but it does not lose the quality of an older movie. Time and effort was spent perfecting the camera's view and the soundtrack, something modern movie makers tend to forget.


Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.

If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.

I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.

Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about 'new moon, more victims', there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.

Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it.


I get the feeling that Lisa Krueger is easy to overlook. I personally found her first film, 1996's Manny and Lo, to be a wonderfully detailed character study and the performances were uniformly wonderful(with special credit to Mary Kay Place). The film played for a week or two in major urban centers and vanished. One or two critics really liked it, but many viewed it as slight. Krueger's second film, Committed, was released this year (2000) (after nearly two years of delays) and it similarly vanished. And once again critics dismissed the film as slight and pushed the film aside, at most praising Heather Graham's screen presence, but rarely her acting ability. And once again, for me, Committed is a solid success. I feel as if Krueger has a genuine voice and a personal visual style and these are traits that shouldn't be so easily ignored, simply because she works on a very restrained canvass.

The title has several meanings, but mostly it refers to Joline (Graham)'s refusal to let her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) flake out and leave her. She follows him from New York to El Paso and becomes one of the most appealing stalkers in recent cinematic history. Her respect for her marriage vows leads her to Mexican mysticism and self-discovery. And yep, the plot is just that simple and thus, just that easy to ignore.

Joline, of course, is the crying voice of a generation whose parents divorced at a rate nearing fifty percent. And for me, her personal revolution against broken promises and a legacy of deceit is fairly intelligent and powerful. Confident in the belief that people just don't have enough faith in each other, Joline inevitably has to discover that her beliefs aren't in synche with those of society at large. Several comments her have referred to her character as one-dimensional and I'm afraid that that's a simplistic reading of the film. Or perhaps even a misreading. If Joline were just an innocent, she wouldn't be interesting at all. It's the fact that she understands the world and refuses to play by the rules of the 'normals' that makes her so interesting. Sociologically, she's a complete deviant.

Krueger sometimes falls into moments of cutesy dialogue and her direction of this film has a rather odd over-reliance on shots of clouds moving across the El Paso skyline. However, her mistakes are fairly rare and in this film, as in Manny and Lo, it's the performances that carry the day. Graham has never been better because she's never had a character as perfectly tailored to her as Joline. For the first time in her career, Graham seems comfortable playing an adult, even one in slightly arrested development. She carries the film perfectly. Luke Wilson and Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother) both have a number of fine moments, as do Alfonso Arau, as a Mexican Mystic and Mark Ruffalo and T-Bo, the slightly psychotic truck driver. As in Manny and Lo, the characters are part of their environments, well detailed totally organic creations. These characters may sometimes seem pointlessly quirky, but they make sense in their context. Even Goran Visnjic, as an artist turned on by Joline's devotion, fits in in some strange way, even though his character's foreigness is never discussed.

For me, this is a movie that gains depth looking back. Another commenter here spoke of the stereotypical Mexican portrayals. And again I'm tempted to call that a misreading. Joline is looking for self-justification. She knows that her commitment is out of control, but she's looking for any spiritual avenue that can help her make sense of herself. Arau's character understands that most people don't believe in him and he plays up his own faith when he sees a woman who respects him.

I guess I can understand how this movie could be viewed as underwhelming, I'd simply disagree. It's consistently funny, frequently hilarious, and all of the characters exude a warmth which is quite wonderful.

I'm giving this one a 7.5/10 and when I log in the vote here, that'll go up to an 8.


Like the previous poster, I am from northern Vermont, and I was inclined to like this film. However, not since 'Red Zone Cuba' have I seen such a confusing plot. The things the people to bootleg make no sense. Two of the gang paddle across the border send a second party across in a car. Uhm, why? Then they meet two others, and drive up at night in to the bad guy's hideout in a luxury Packard. --Wouldn't just two people in a flatbed truck make more sense? Then, parked outside the garage that holds the targeted hooch, the four fall asleep! When they waken in the morning and and start hauling the whiskey out, of course they're spotted and shot at, losing some of their precious cargo in the process. Then two of the smugglers put the whiskey in a boat and float it over the border. Again, why? I am told by someone whose great uncle really did smuggle in the area, all one needed was to drive a vehicle that could outrun than the U.S. Canada Border Patrol, which back then had a fraction of the resources it has now.

And don't get me started on the last half hour, which made no sense whatsoever.

The only good thing I can say about the film is that Kris Kristopherson has actually grown some charisma with the years.


Kramer vs. Kramer is the story of a marital breakup and the consequences of same. They can be devastating to the partners and even more so to a minor child which in this case is played by Justin Henry.

What I really did like about Kramer vs. Kramer, it's greatest strength as a film is the way that parents Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep are presented to the audience as whole people with many sides to their nature. Though the film is slanted in Hoffman's direction and more about his relationship with his son, he's not presented as any kind of saint, nor is Streep a completely black villain. Hoffman's a career oriented man in the advertising game. He's pretty much ignored his wife's dreams and aspirations, still it's a big shock to him when Streep says the love's no longer there and she wants out. She also wants out of being a mother, at least for a while.

Hoffman and Henry make do the best they can. The pressure of being both parents causes Hoffman to lose his job and he has to take a lower paying one in another agency. At that point after over a year, Streep decides she wants custody.

Both parents make compelling witnesses and state their case beautifully, but in these situations, the tie is always broken in favor of the mother.

Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep won their first of two Oscars respectively for this film, her in the Supporting Actress category. I'm not sure how these things are decided, Streep does get less screen time than Hoffman if that's the determining factor. The film does focus on Hoffman's relationship with his son and his evolving realization that he has his share of the blame for the marriage failure. As for Meryl it's a Hob's choice for her as it is for many women, to balance a career and motherhood. The conflict in her psyche registers for all to see on the screen.

Dustin Hoffman may have won that Oscar partly for the same reason that Spencer Tracy picked up his first, by performing the impossible task of not letting a scene stealing child steal the film. Children with their lack of inhibitions are natural actors and Henry is great because he comes over as a real kid, not a Hollywood kid. I wonder if Hoffman saw Captains Courageous and saw how Spencer Tracy dealt with Freddie Bartholomew. Dustin could have done a lot worse than channel Spencer Tracy in his performance.

Kramer vs. Kramer also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director for Robert Benton and Best Adapted Screenplay. It's an intelligent and compelling drama about adults falling out of love and trying to deal as best they can with it for themselves and their child. Don't miss it if ever broadcast.


Sigh... what can I say?

Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!

To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!

And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA?

This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.


This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!


I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.

What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: 'You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu'.


Bill and Ted's bogus journey is possible the most excellent film I have ever watched. Though the acting and scenery etc is poor, who cares. The story line is brilliant and the jokes and words they come up with are most excellent, the ideas are great as well. I recommend anyone to see this classic. The best part is obviously when they 'melvin' death, i was cracking up for 10 minutes and missed the next part of the film. This is so much better then the first one, which was great as well. Possibly the funniest movie of all time!!!!! I think the best parts of the film however, are when Bill and Ted shout excellent and play the guitar solo, it was hilarious. Rock on Bill, Ted and Eddie Van Halen, bring out a 3rd film!!


This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.

There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on 'free TV'--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.

The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.

Skip this bogus thing.


This movie has it all: it is a thriller, a chase movie, a romance story, a mob tale, a comedy, a road movie... well, in fact it's none of this at all.

All the time you are waiting for something interesting to happen, but no, you are still watching the same dull, uninspiring and superficial cliché of a movie with a very bad soundtrack. Even the star cast acting is lacking in credibility. A hit man with his quirks, a girl who's playing hard to get, mob guys acting tough and incapable cops, yawn...

I'd recommend not to watch Backtrack. If you want to see a good movie directed by a famous actor, go and see 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' by Tommy Lee Jones. Now, that's what I call worth watching.


It may have not been up for academy awards and admittedly, it's pretty cheesy, but it's just so much fun! Nothing makes me smile like Bill and Ted. Lovable, optimistic, and hilarious, Bill and Ted are a great way to unwind.

Although I love Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey is funnier to me. Death is flippin hilarious and Bill and Ted are even more endearing. People give me grief about loving this movie, but only really pretentious movie-watchers will say it's not even a bit entertaining. If you like this, you'll probably also be a fan of Wayne's World, Dude Where's My Car, and Dumb and Dumber. Admit it, though foolish, they make you grin and turn your tickle box over. So watch them just for kicks and giggles!!


This a Casper the Friendly Ghost short from my childhood, and I re-watch it on YouTube (Thank GOD! for You Tube); after that I love this short, and it is one of my favorite Casper shorts.

I love how the short starts off spooky with Frank Gallop's haunting narration; until we get to see Casper sitting by his tombstone in the cemetery, reading. While every ghost rose from the graves to 'boo' people, Casper decides to leave in search for a friend. But in trying to make a friend, anyone who sees Casper runs away. Poor Casper sat on a log and weep; until a little fox cub comes up an nuzzles him. Casper and the little fox quickly bond and he quickly names the cub Ferdie and considers him to be his very best friend.

Casper and Ferdie's relationship is put in tremendous jeopardy however when Casper is not keeping a close eye on Ferdie while they are playing a game of Hide and Seek. While Ferdie is hiding a hunter and two of his hunting dogs come and try to kill little Ferdie and Ferdie is running as fast as possible until he is out of breath and starts panting. While the hunter is firing gunshots towards Ferdie Casper notices they are trying to kill him and flies in the hunter's direction and pleads that the hunter leaves Ferdie alone. And the hunter and dogs are terrified of Casper. Casper yells to Ferdie that the hunter and the dogs are gone and that everything is fine. But Casper sees Ferdie's body is not moving and asks if he is OK. When Casper sees Ferdie has died he starts mourning in pain because he lost 'the only friend he ever had in his whole life.' Casper returns back to the cemetery where he has buried Ferdie and has made a gravestone for him next to Casper's gravestone. Casper continues mourning in pain until he sees that Ferdie has resurrected as a ghost himself. Ferdie starts licking Casper on his cheek. Casper screams for joy because he has been reunited with Ferdie.

Overall, it is a really good short; though surprisingly disturbing, showing death in a family-oriented cartoon.


I usually love teen/high school genre flicks, but this film was really lacking in originality. The only premise this film has is four friends cheating their way through high school and the strain it puts on their friendship. There's just not enough depth in the story or the characters to keep the viewers attention for the full length of the film. The acting isn't all that bad although the actors don't really have much to work with as the dialog is tripe and cliché'... After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, 'I MUST make this film.' No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release. Andrew Gurland is a hack, avoid or burn.


Man, I never laugh so much this year, and it's pretty hard to make me laugh. While I expected some Hostel-style movie, the smile came to my face even from the beginning. This film-inside-film shows a female stabbed 'victim' messing the whole set until she finally 'die'. Her overacting drive the director nuts and his funny reaction tell us, the viewers, that Mute Witness is not a typically horror movie.

The main character, the mute American make-up artist Billy Hughes, is played by the beautiful yet talented Russian actress Marina Zudina. Her performance is top-notch; her character can't speak, so the body language and the emotions on her face must compensate.And, oh boy, she did a wonderful job. Her sister (Fay Ripley) is the girlfriend or the fiancée or the wife of the 'in-film director' (Evan Richards). They were both very funny most of the time. I won't spoil more, but the scenes following the bathtub moment, with them two, the fake policemen and later the angry neighbor were plain brilliant black comedy.

The plot get twisted near the end, possibly misleading at one particular moment. But don't worry. Such a delicious movie can be viewed in family or with your boy-/girl-/friend.


Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London

The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves ' Hey what was he in ? I know that face ' several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting .

Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR

I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays

I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything


This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have

have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe

Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply

disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and 'different'. I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.


There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have 'clairvoyance'. People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all...


John Sayles, what have you done?

'Silver City' had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but 'Silver City' is ghastly.

I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.

The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.

Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by 'Silver City.' Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.


This is a very grim, hard hitting, even brutal film about a death row break that goes awry. It's black and white photography keeps it from being dated. Mickey Rooney is excellent as the twisted, yet strangely sympathetic lead. One of the first movies to portray the psychological desolation of death row. It is also quite poignant.


I totally agree. This is 'Pitch Black underground' and a well worn plot. The best scenes I thought were the divers exploring the caves, going through impossible subterranean passageways, some of them were heart pounding. The scenery was great. Had they dispensed with the staple 'alien' toothy CGI badboys entirely the movie would have been much better. All they would have had to do is never show any monsters at all but have everyone wondering, and follow Jack's descent into madness, and this might have been a top rate hitchcock-style thriller, maybe award material. The acting isn't bad. But those rubber bats just reduce it to standard fare.


This movie looked like a classic in the cheesy 80s slasher genre, which is my favorite genre of them all, so when I saw it was Free on Demand, I had to watch it! It stars Caroline Munro, from both Dr. Phibes films (she was his wife that died!), Dracula A.D. 1972, The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter, The Spy Who Loved Me, Maniac, and Faceless.

Brought to you by the people behind Don't Open Til Christmas and Pieces, Heres my thoughts on this...

It opens on April Fools Day, where a bunch of kids play an elaborate prank on the school nerd- promising him sex in the shower, and giving him public humiliation and a face in the toilet (all while hes naked!). The coach puts a stop to it, but both parties swear revenge. But, the cool kids end up burning the nerd alive.

Cut to the future, and its th High School reunion, or so they think (bwahahha?). The only ones with invitations were the gang who burned the kid, and its April Fools Day (or really, the day before April Fools, but the fun starts at midnight), yet they fail to see the coincidence and hang out in front of the school until nightfall. Then they finally break into the school and it starts storming.

Inside they find food/drink and a little shrine for each of them, each of their lockers and belongings, along with Marty's (the nerds) locker and yearbook. They also find the old black janitor/caretaker who spends his time saying 'Oooh yesser! Yesser! I don't want no trouble, sir!' and then is killed instantly. Pretty pointless character, but hes still my favorite.

The movie takes a page out of Alien's book, in a deliciously gory way that you just have to see! Thats when everyone realizes that they're there to die, and they start freaking out, except for Shirley, who decides it would be best to take a bath in the old school showers at a time like this. Of course, it pours out blood and acid and her face melts off (very cool, mind you) The rest of the night goes as usual, sex, drugs, and Marty killing everyone whilst wearing a jester mask.. Whats their plan? 'All we have to do is stay awake and wait till noon. Marty wont kill us during mid-day!'. Seriously, thats what he said. Apparently you can only kill at nighttime. But will they survive through the night? Who will live and who will die? And why are all the bodies disappearing? Rent, buy, or steal this great movie to find out! The movie is actually very good, filled with clichés (car wont start, DAMMIT!) and just plain slasher fun. Not to mention they all have names like Carol and Nany and Frank and Joe and Susan. I recommend it to all of you! And, not to mention, it has a Spin Off! 1989's Cutting Class is a spin-off from this slasher gem, and that movie starts the career of Brad Pitt and Roddy McDowell.

Favorite scene: 2 people having sex, the guy wants to finish but the girl doesn't. 'Talk dirty to me, Frank!!' she screams 'Uh... tits!' 'DIRTIER!' 'Uh... tits. F*ck. tits. Boobs. F*ck.'. It seems to work for her and at her climax, the killer electrocutes them both!


'Hero and the Terror' is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.

I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.


Everything this film tried to do is done better - and superbly in 'Run Lola Run'. The Red Haired Hip Cutie, the critical deadline(s), The Lover in jeopardy, and the 'Crime Pays-Sometimes' message. BUT, unlike 'Lola', it just isn't believable or well put together. It is a labored knock off that might have worked for me if I had seen it before 'Lola' - but it pales in comparison. Yes! The Falling Beetle was nice! But that was about the only surprise in the film. Do yourself a favor and see the Real McCoy - (And the REAL hip Red Head!) - in Run Lola Run!


All of those who voted less than 5 are obviously not fans of clean, tongue-in-cheek humor. Keaton is brilliant in this - as in most of his work. This is not a blockbuster, bigger-than-life affair. This is campy, slapstick humor played out by some of Hollywood's best (and very versatile) actors. Piscopo was equally on the mark as the top dog wannabee, once.

If you want to see the funniest attempt at not really cussing ever filmed, you gotta see Dimitri do his piece as Morone.

I gave it a 7.


This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)


I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.

And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.


I recently saw this at the 2009 Palm Springs International Film. This is the feature length directorial debut of veteran Dutch actress Monique van de Ven and based on my observation it should be her last. I hate movies that are so implausible that you are picking apart practically every scene. This film immediately leaves you scratching your head. as it begins a young photographer and his girlfriend who works for an international aid organization are having a leisurely drive through the Taliban-controlled mountains Afghanistan having a conversation about their love when a rocket stops a truck in front of them. They get out of their vehicle to watch as Talliban fighters equipped with rocket launchers, machine guns, rifles, handguns and grenades execute all five people in the truck. Bob (Waldemar Torenstra) starts taking pictures of all this when he is spotted by one of the insurgents who lobs a hand grenade at them that kills his girlfriend. since they are with hand throwing distance they can't be more than 50 yards away yet he somehow gets away. His girlfriend is blown up and he takes a picture of the moment of the grenade impact that kills her and wins a prize as photographer of the year for the photo. Every scene and situation in this film as as ridiculous as it's opening. The following year Bob finds himself on assignment for National Geographic on a Dutch resort island where he meets Kathleen (Sophie Hilbrand) and inserts himself into her seedy underworld of international drug smugglers. Avoid this film. I would give it a 4.0 out of 10.


To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them.

However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight.

But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera.

Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry?

This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction


Once upon a time, in Sweden, there was a poor Salvation Army sister. At death's door, she requests, 'Send for David Holm!' But, Victor Sjöström (as David Holm) cannot be located, because he is spending New Year's Eve in a graveyard, with his drinking buddies. Dying Sister Astrid Holm (as Edit) wants to see if praying for Mr. Sjöström's soul, over the past year, has produced any results; arguably, it has not. In the graveyard, Sjöström tells the story of 'The Phantom Carriage', which he heard from his dead friend Tore Svennberg (as Georges). According to legend, the last person to die in each year must pick up the souls of all the dead people, until being relieved next New Year's Eve...

Director Sjöström, whose lead performance is very strong, combines with photographer Julius Jaenzon to create a visually appealing film. The great 'double exposure' effect is used frequently, but never seems overdone; and, it doesn't make the film's other dramatic highlights any less memorable (for example, Sjöström's tearing of his sewn coat and axing of the door). A Selma Lagerlöf story probably wasn't one you could, or would want to, tamper with in the 1920s - which may, or may not be, why the ending of this film is a letdown. And, unlike similar spiritual stories, it's difficult to suspend your disbelief, if you think too carefully about what is really happening in 'Körkarlen'.

******* Körkarlen (1/1/21) Victor Sjöström ~ Victor Sjöström, Hilda Borgström, Tore Svennberg


This may contain ***SPOILERS***

Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.

There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.

When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.

All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.


How come I've never seen or even heard about this junk-movie before? It's right up my alley with bloody teenkill, laughable plotting and an irresistible 80's cheese-atmosphere hanging around it. For some reason nobody is really interested in, the staff and students of an elite Catholic university are butchered by an unknown psychopath. Freshly recruited teacher Julie Parker becomes involved when all the people she has contact with either turn up dead or behave strangely. This movie is hilariously bad! There's absolutely no logic or coherence and every character is equally meaningless to the others. For example, there's a girl killed and her body dumped in a container. Then, and for no reason, the story suddenly moves forward three weeks yet the murdered girl is never mentioned or even missed. Not even by her boyfriend! The acting is pitiful and there isn't even a bit of nudity to enjoy. The revelation of the killer is quite funny because the makers really seemed convinced that it was an original twist... It's not, guys! 'Splatter University' is easily one of the worst horror-turkeys ever.


This was a very funny movie, not Oscar-worthy, but definately the best dollar I've ever spent at Blockbuster! Rupert Penry Jones is a shining star, and very well might be the new Jude Law! So, if you're in the mood for a British Teen Flick- RENT IT!!


The Sentinel i was hoping would be a good film and boy i was right.A great story first of all from a novel and i thought this was an original story but i guess it wasn't and it was a very smart story. Michael Douglas in this film is very good and Keither Sutherland is too,but however it is very hard to shrug him off his role as Jack Bauer in 24 but eventually you do and he is very different in The Sentinel than he is in 24.also another person trying to shrug off their TV role but failed.Eva Longeria.She wasn't that good in the film and had a back seat in the entire thing.After i saw the film i had constant dreams about The Sentinel and couldn't sleep.Overall Sentinel is a good film and i would recommend it.


When I first saw 'A Cry in the Dark', I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.


I desperately need this on a tape, not a DVD, and soon!

I have one nephew who is in the infantry but has not yet deployed, although he set to go to Iraq soon after December 2008. I lost my beloved step son in Ramadi Iraq on 09-15-05 from an unmanned missile in a green zone. I have another nephew who is joining the army as soon as he graduates from high school this spring because he, like his older brother, has some idealized and romanticized idea about what serving in the military is. My stepson died after only 10 days in country and he never went out on any missions so my nephews have no way to reference any of the experiences shown in this candid documentary from any type of personal experiences that might have been conveyed by my now deceased son.

There is nothing I can do about those who are in, or now gone, but I have one left that has not raised his hand and been sworn in YET. I desperately want him to do so informed, none of the others did.

Pleases help me with this.

The movie documentary The Ground Truth is the best visual reference I have ever seen. I need to somehow make my youngest nephew see what he is getting himself into before it is to late. BUT: ( do not laugh )I NEED my mother to see this first. She must actually see and hear these men and women, not simply the idea of them, but the truth of what they will be immersed in, possibly forever. Then she will have the emotional determination to make my brother watch this film and once he has then he may then make his son, my youngest nephew, watch it too. Then, my nephew might begin to take this seriously.

((( is there another time when this will be shown on TV ? if so please tell me when ? )))

However, my problem is, my mother does not own a DVD player, she still uses video ( is that correct? with tapes ? ) So, I need to find a way for her to be able to watch this film. Can I purchase this from anyone in that form? If not, is there any other way for me to get this in the form of a tape from anyone? Is there any legitimate link from which I can pay to download it onto my computer and then transfer it to a tape. If so who would I contact. I will gladly pay for the privilege providing it is a legitimate link.

Or,if you have any alternative ideas I will consider anything you can suggest.

Please help me, I have lost one very precious adored and loved one already, I already know my oldest nephew will never be the same when he returns and I may loose him too. I cannot loose three and the emotional toll for all of those that do make it back is too high a price to pay for every male child in my family of that generation. Please help me. I will happily call you, email me a number if that is the best way to get the needed information. Thank you so much for any help you can offer.

Sincerely, Lori Swanberg l.swanberg@yahoo.com


Tromeo and Juliet is perhaps the best Shakespeare modernization I have ever seen, not that there's much competition, but anyway...

All in all, Tromeo and Juliet is definitely one of Troma's better movies, one of the little pearls hidden in a towering heap of dung. It's a funny, action-packed, gory take on the world's greatest love story, but still manages to follow the original story as faithfully as one can except from this kind of movie. Well, except for the ending, where Tromeo and Juliet kill Juliet's abusive father, and live happily together in a sunny suburban area for the rest of their lives with their hideously mutated children.

THIS is the movie high school literature classes should show instead of making poor students read through hundreds and hundreds of pages of Shakespeare's scripts. Thumbs up!


I found this film to be a bit too depressing. I don't mind dramas, but this was a bit too much for me. Luckily, there does seem to be somewhat a decent outcome. I suppose it was well done. I'd watch it again, but it's nothing to rave about.


The beautifully engaging song with the same name as the film won the best song Oscar in 1955.

Love is a many splendored thing.

It's the April rose that only grows in the early spring.

Love is nature's way of giving a reason to be living.

That golden crown that makes a man a king.

Once on a high and windy hill

In the morning mist two lovers kissed and the world stood still.

Then your fingers touched my silent heart and taught it how to sing.

Yes, true love a many-splendored thing.

How can we forget such a beautiful song. Henry King, the director, had the privilege to work with Jennifer Jones twice that year for this film and the greatly under-rated film 'Good Morning, Miss Dove.' Jones was nominated for 'Splendored Thing' but she could have been easily nominated for Miss Dove as well.

William Holden is just great as the war correspondent sent to report on the Communist revolution in 1949 China. His love for Jones, an oriental doctor, was endearing and so memorable to watch.

While the ending is not pleasing, this is still one of the greatest romances ever put on the screen.


Without John Rhys-Davies, I have to admit that this would never even register on my movie-meter. But in spite of that single fact, this is not a bad little thriller, considering the low budget, the low quality effects, the stiff acting and the Sci Fi Channel aspects. The blood effects are very convincing, and the Chupacabra actually looks realistic... regardless of what you think a Chupacabra looks like this is one good-looking Chupacabra.

Aside from the positives, this runs kind of like Kolchak: The Night Stalker (Darren McGavin, remember?) meets the Love Boat, but in spite of the ultimate cheese of this work, it still holds something resembling a plot, and actually attempts to gain your respect while making you laugh and roll your eyes.

As conflicted as this work is, I still managed to find some enjoyment herein. Maybe you will, too.

It rates a 5.2/10 on the Made 4 TV Scale.

It rates a 4.1/10 on the Movie Scale from...

the Fiend :.


Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.

Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.

In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.

Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.

Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the 'bella, bella' scenery of the city.


An absolutely wretched waste of film!! Nothing ever happens. No ghosts, hardly any train, no mystery, no interest. The constant and BRUTAL attempts at comedy are painful. Everything else is pathetic. The premise is idiotic: a bunch of people stranded in the middle of no-place, because their train was held up for less than 3 minutes. What? And the railroad leaves them no place to stay, in a heavy storm? I think not. Oh, they can walk 4 miles across the dead-black fields. umm, yeah. Sure. Or, they can force themselves on the railroad's hospitality, and stay at the 'haunted' train station. A station which proved to be nothing but DEADLY BORING, utterly without ghosts, interest, or plot.

So very terribly dull that this seems impossible.

This ought to be added to the LOST FILMS list !! aargh !!


This documentary is the most hypnotizing film I have seen in a long while. I must have had it on for an entire day. The selected material included in the piece flow amazingly well and develop three characters that are impossible to ever forget. The different layers of these people peel back to make an oddly moving film about perseverance, loyalty and determination. These characters ended up suprisingly fascinating and the film is unforgettable.


this show is just plain awful. I liked to watch Drake and Josh, which was great, and before that The Amanda show, also funny, but this is just AWFUL. in my opinion watching this felt like watching those --- movies from Seltzberg, painful and uncleaver. this is about 3 dumb@$$ kids who make a crappy web-show (while stealing the hole Ithing) while their retarded brother is making sculptures (he has no life). the cast is crap, Megan from drake and josh is carly (AHHHHHH!)a ugly b!tch is sam and some kid they pulled off the street plays fred. all i saw from this (ugg) are random 'jokes' that include the brother making a clay-mation film, he also played an arcade game called PAC-rat (genious), Sam and Carly being retards on their web show, and Fred being a dork. the only episode a saw (cant remember the title) where Fred gets bad luck by not forewarding an email.i find videos on youtube funnier than this junk. and why the hell do they get youtube jack@$$ fred, get AVGN to cancel the show with his potty mouth. just skip this show.


Obviously made to show famous 1950s stripper Misty Ayers 'acting' talents. Too bad she can't act.

Boring little tale about sweet, innocent Sally Down (Ayers) being drugged and forced into white slavery (prostitution). Then she meets likable Tommy Cole who instantly falls in love with her. He wants to help her escape but can he? You really won't care.

There's no real skin here--Ayers just strips down SLOWLY to her underwear (twice). The rest is just a boring little tale chockful of bad acting, atrocious 'comedy' (never thought prostitution was funny but what do I know?) and terrible post-dubbed dialogue. I admit there was a twist at the end I didn't see coming but that's not enough to sit through this. Also Ayers' attempts at acting are hysterical! A real bomb. Avoid.


The film version of Alice Walker's hugely emotive and influential 1983 novel (written largely as letters from the central character Celie to God) was a massive Oscar success, and rightly so.

In the role of the abused and awakened Celie, Whoopi Goldberg gave her best screen performance by miles. Not far behind her was Oprah Winfrey as Sofia, the fiery woman tamed by fate. Others in the cast fleshed out the characters Walker had introduced so clearly on the page - Danny Glover as Albert, Celie's abusive husband; Margaret Avery as Shug, a force of change for the good; Willard Pugh and Rae Dawn Chong as Harpo and Squeak; Susan Beaubian as Corrine, the preacher's wife; and the much-missed Carl Anderson (otherwise best known as Judas in the 1973 film of Jesus Christ Superstar) as preacher Samuel.

Beautifully paced and sensitively written, 'The Color Purple' does justice to its source while opening out the story to involve viewers of a feature-length drama.


The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.

I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.

To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.

I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film.....


Forced, cloying, formulaic. Do these adjectives make you want to run to rent his? Miriam Hopkins was brilliant in the original 'Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.' A few other early movies of hers, notably 'The Story of Temple Drake,' are never shown but said to be excellent.

Here, she is cutesy, bossy, and thoroughly unappealing. Ray Milland as a Greeniwch Village bohemian not at all convincing.

The two child performers are creepy and also bear no relation to the Village as it was then.

Speaking as a native of Greenwich Village, I find the setting ersatz, generic, and phony. Not that I was around for a couple generations but my relatives were there in 1937. It isn't funny. It isn't remotely authentic. We don't care about the characters.

So many movies were made about the struggling masses vs the capitalists at this time, and done with elan. 'Easy Living' comes to mind. It didn't take place in the Village. But it rings very true. This rings with a thudding knell.


This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.


There are few movies that appear to provide enterntainment as well as realism. If you've ever wondered about the role of snipers in modern war, take a look at this one.

I just loved the scene where hundred soldiers get shooting at the jungle, no-one quite sure where that shot came?

And, they nicked one scene to Saving Private Ryan, so it has to have some merit in the scene.