Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable.

Then comes Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel). Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all (especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability/inexperience to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which paradoxically lessened the drama.

Of course, this is a crude film at least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film, Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is excellent.


This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast !


Really? Is this necessary? How can somebody make such a film? Disgusting!!! Seteven Seagal with funny hair and fat like an elephant. Stunts all the time, cars persecutions with an annoying soundtrack. Not to mention the Ending. Completely nonsense with the presence of the little girl.

Steven Seagal wants to be Robin Hood!!! Well, at the beginning a fortune teller answers something, nobody has asked. Seagal's wife has nightmares and she can see the future. They must be kidding. Steven Segal passes out after a car persecution, and I know he can't act. It was terrible. Nothing can save that film.

I lost 90 minutes of my life! See you


About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the 'twist' at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!


I went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back, and we popped by a theatre, so we'd thought we'd go in and give this film a go. What a mistake! This film is awful in every department. I'd never heard of the film before, and literally everyone still hasn't. No wonder, this is as rank as it gets. It's a comedy, so it says, well the only thing funny is the ability, or lack of it, of the director to make such a film. Getting so close to Christmas, this should be titled how to under-cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours - or however long it was, as I walked out. At the end of the film, you'll come out feeling as though you've been food poisoned on a sick turkey, and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. Who knows why such things get made. Some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over, and I blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. It really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent, and all that you come out and see is a poor TV movie that should be showed at 2 o'clock in the morning, in fact, it's that bad, day time TV shouldn't be showing it. What else can a say...probably not enough bad words could do it justice.


This movie turned out to be better than I had expected it to be. Some parts were pretty funny. It was nice to have a movie with a new plot.


If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.

Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making.....


By rights, there should never have been a 'First Blood Part II'. The original script for 'First Blood' had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.

The official title of this film was 'Rambo: First Blood Part II', but it is more commonly known simply as 'Rambo'. It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in 'First Blood', although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.

What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your 'trivia' section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.

The tone of this film is very different from the first. In 'First Blood' Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In 'Rambo' he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made 'The Cassandra Crossing', a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and 'Rambo' proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.

'First Blood' had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. 'Rambo', by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong!

By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to 'Rambo', 'The Green Berets' was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10


As an American fan of The League of Gentlemen I had to wait months to finally see this film when it came out on DVD, but it was well worth the (excruciating) wait. 'Apocalypse' is fantastic- funny, freaky, clever as hell, full of in-jokes and cryptic references to the television series; basically everything you'd expect from the Gentlemen.

The plot has already been discussed in other reviews, so I won't bother re-capping it, although I will say when I first read it I was a bit hesitant. Obviously this device- fictional characters entering the real world to confront their makers- has been used before, notably in Wes Craven's underrated 'New Nightmare' and Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' books (where King himself was a character). The Gentlemen have fun breaking the fourth wall, though, and even add a new element: a second fictional world ('them days'). Soon all three realities have weaved together, and the result is exhilarating: Geoff Tipps being knighted in the middle ages (and trying to court Queen Victoria Wood); the real League of Gentlemen in Royston Vasey, being confronted by characters like Pauline and Dr. Chinnery; David Warner summoning an homunculus outside of Bernice's church. I've heard that some people disliked the 'King's Evil' sub-plot, but I found it hilarious, especially Reece's character (who seemed to be channeling Judith the 'Witch' from series three).

Speaking of the characters, I was relieved to find that, although Hilary Briss, Geoff, and Herr Lipp were planted firmly in at the film's core, other, more familiar characters were given their due. Bernice's confessional in the beginning was hilarious, hearkening back to the quicker, more sketch-oriented feel of the first series. Pauline and Mickey have cameos (no Ross though- strange), although I would've loved to've seen more of Ms. Campbell-Jones. Papa Lazarou is accounted for, as are Tubbs and Edward. All three are used very sparingly, giving their meager screen time an almost magical feel (and just what the HELL did Papa hack up, like an obscene hairball? According to the DVD commentary, a 'wad of greasy pubic hair').

The film looks incredible, but then, what's new? The music, as always, is breathtaking. I was thrilled to hear Joby Talbot's new interpretations of the theme music, and his slight re-working of the majestic, lovely piece that closes out both 'Apocalypse' and the last episode of series three.

I have some minor complaints- it would have been nice to see more of the old, familiar Royston Vasey, and I felt the stop-motion creatures (beautiful, by the way) were a bit underused. Both of these issues, however, can be justified by the film's budget, so they're understandable. Still, as much as I loved Bernice's new church, it would have been cool to see the final battle in the high street (the Gentlemen's original vision, according to the commentary).

Overall, 'Apocalypse' is astounding, especially if you're a fan of the series. I can't recommend it highly enough. 10/10.


I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.


OK, this movie wasn't good at all. Video games aren't what I would brag on if I was over the age of 15. Cool to play games, but writing a comment about video game players may like this movie for that it is, that is strange. Just play a video game, don't make up a sorry story about getting trapped in one. I use my cell phone, I hope I don't loose my girlfriend in that. Grease being the worst ever? OK, Grease has a very well thought out story along with being a musical. Even if you don't like musicals, anyone would say Grease is good. My brother plays video games all the time and he watched 30 minutes and left because it was so awful. I feel asleep.


This is absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively.

The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character 'Joe' (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't 'get' Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class.


I have just managed to get hold of the Celestial region 3 DVD of The Five Venoms and what a super job they have made of it. A fantastic digitally remastered transfer and a must have for any Kung Fu fan.

The story is pretty straight forward, and has been mentioned already so I won't go into it again. Needless to say it's the fight scenes that many buy the movie for, and they do not disappoint. Only problem is they are a bit few and far between and seem over rehearsed. Bruce Lee could take these lot on and drink a cup of tea at the same time! All kicks and punches come with the all important 'type writer' clicks and air 'whooshes', which is a cool effect though quite amusing!

I give this movie a B+. Good but not great. In a way I feel it could have been that bit better. Golden Swallow, by the same director a decade earlier, had as good a story and better action.


A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.

A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.

The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.

This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.


Soul's Midnight stars Armande Assante (Simon) who stared in 'The Mambo Kings' and Elizabeth Bennett (Alicia Milford). Together with Sexy vampire vixen, Lucila Sola (Iris), Simon lures pregnant Alicia and her husband Charles into the netherworld of Soul's Midnight. Assante sinks his fangs into the script by writers Brian and Jason Cleveland and you enjoy watching him and Iris kill. Alicia and Charles (Robert Floyd) try to stay alive while gore keeps your lust for blood sated.

(spoiler alert) In today's jaded landscape, it comes as no surprise that a back-stabbing preacher gets bitten. Set looks cool  lots of detail at the Borgo Hotel and cool special effects at the end. I had a lot of fun watching this movie  it doesn't take itself too seriously and looks great.


This show is really great. It's smart.It's funny.It's great acting and writing. This show is really the fastest show I've ever seen. The Dialogues are really funny and well acted. Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel have a great chemistry.You really do believe they are mother and daughter. This show really showed that mother daughter relationships really don't have to be just mother and daughter, they can be best friends but on the same time it shows that it's really hard sometimes being more than just mother and daughter especially with Lorelai and Emily. Just watch this show I highly recommend it.It's great and definitely the best show on the air. Season 7 stars Tuesday September 26th, 2006, 8/7c on the new The CW


I wouldn't say this is a bad movie; in fact it's pretty typical of the type of film that the 'poverty row' studios were releasing at the time. Filmed for Monogram, Bela Lugosi is very effective in his role as the somewhat demented doctor-scientist, masquerading as a respected member of the community. In this movie, Bela and his henchmen have the nasty habit of stealing young brides, and, after their demise, injecting Bela's wife with a serum taken from their bodies in order to keep her young. Lugosi is more than up to the task in making this an enjoyable film, however, the movie suffers from the ultra-wooden acting of co stars Luana Walters and Tristram Coffin. Coffin (nice name for a guy in a horror flick) is especially bad in this case. I've seen him in numerous movies and tv shows and he is always the same; stiff, wooden and utterly unconvincing. Miss Walters is only slightly better, but she too lacks the acting talent to make her role believable. Still, the viewer can enjoy the great Lugosi act out yet another dastardly scheme only to be foiled in the end! Despite the poor acting by some, 'The Corpse Vanishes' is an enjoyable movie for all to see.


Solange is not a great Italian thriller. Get ready for the spoiler - the main suspect, the professor, didn't do it. But is it really a spoiler? No, because you know that he couldn't have been the murderer from the very beginning; he and a student witnessed the first murder. So, there is absolutely no suspense as to whether or not the professor is the killer. There is a long, tedious build up to the final explanation of the mystery. The solution is interesting, but it comes out of nowhere. The rest of the movie (and it's not a short movie) is just not exciting enough to hold your interest. Even in the tradition of 'wrong man accused' it fails, because the police never seriously accuse the professor, and the killer is never after him. Dull, dull, dull.


The 1st season was amazing, the whole idea of them adjusting to the island, while mysteries were being explored (And seen) was just phenomenal; filled with suspense, tons of cliffhangers, and an amazing plot. I mean, I love the whole idea of just seeing them get used to the island. And then first seeing the smoke monster in the first episode really caught my attention. From then on, I was hooked The second season was right on par with the 1st season, only a little better. I absolutely loved the idea of the hatches and the DHARMA Initiative. The whole plot and sequences of season 2 were mysterious, creepy, and exciting. I loved all the suspense surround others on the island, but the DHARMA story really made season 2 amazing.

Season 3 wasn't quite as good as 1 and 2 ... but nonetheless, great. I loved seeing the back-stories of the others, seeing their camp, and seeing the mysteries further explored. ('Tricia Tanak Is Dead' is one of my favorite episodes). This season, while not as good, was still breathtaking and fun, but most of all exciting! Now, the 4th season. I had hopes for this season, and the 1st couple of episodes we're good, but then it REALLY started to get boring and monotonous. I mean, I REALLY despise the new 'rescuers' such as Miles and Daniel. The plot got old after the first couple episodes ... and MOST OF ALL .... Season 4 was stripped away of something which made LOST a perfect series: The mystery, suspense, comedy mixed in (Charlie gone) and overall excitement. Also, some of my favorite characters have left.


Let's see. This movie is many things to different people. To Finns, as shown by the comments, it can be OK or dreadful or boring. To other folks, it can be something different. First off: if you do not speak Finnish (I do), you will understand half of what is going on, as subtitles are dreadful and even the title is translated incorrectly ('Paha maa' would probably be idiomatically translated as Badlands in UK English).

Why did I not like it? Because it is a Tarantino-style movie: it simply takes a very harsh reality and throws it back at you, as brutally as possible. I, however, am not American, and thus I am not particularly fond of this proceeding, because all it does is show that the director has really nothing new to say. Technical prowess (camera work is brilliant), script (not that unoriginal) do not rescue this movie from the bottom where it belongs. Should you wish to see a Finnish movie, then go for any of the Kaurismäki brothers' movie, who match talent and directorial skill, with very good actresses and actors.

This director ought to review his intention and priorities: none was intelligible, and thus this film failed. By not watching it you won't miss much.


Well, I'm a few days late but what the hell....! Anyways, the word that best describes my reaction to 'See No Evil' was....SURPRISE. The film is actually pretty good. There is definitely an ample amount of blood, gore & action in the film with a modest amount of suspense. It hearkens back to the good ole' slasher days of the late 70's & early 80s. Think 'Madman' meets Leatherface with a dash of Norman Bates and you'll get a good feel for this flick. While SNE is thin on plot (most horror films are), it kind of makes up for it in the violence/methods of killing, the gore, suspense & the fact that Kane does a great job of playing the highly disturbed Jacob Goodnight. The title of the film comes from the fact that Jacob plucks out the eyes of his victims using just his fingers & stores them in big jars. Why?? You'll just have to watch it & see (pun intended). There are certain cinematic elements lifted from other horror films most notably Psycho, TCM, & Madman but they're not blatant. Finally, SNE really doesn't go into territory we long timers haven't seen before & granted, SNE is no 'Pyscho' or 'TCM 74' but it certainly merits a look imo.

BloodStone's Recommendation: Take in a matinée showing of 'See No Evil' Bloodstone's Rating: 7.5/10


This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.

If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.

I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, 'White Bim Black Ear' -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.


So Dark The Night poses a tough challenge: It's very hard to write about it in any detail without ruining it for those who haven't yet seen it. Since it remains quite obscure, that includes just about everybody. The movie will strike those familiar with its director Joseph H. Lewis' better known titles in the noir cycle  Gun Crazy, The Big Combo, even My Name Is Julia Ross, which in its brevity it resembles  as an odd choice.

For starters, the bucolic French countryside serves as its setting. Steven Geray, a middle-aged detective with the Surété in Paris, sets out for a vacation in the village of Ste. Margot (or maybe Margaux). Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself falling in love with the inkeepers' daughter (Micheline Cheirel), even though she's betrothed to a rough-hewn local farmer. But the siren song of life in Paris is hard to resist, so she agrees to marry him, despite the disparity in their ages, which inevitably becomes the talk of the town.

But on the night of their engagement party, she fails to return to the inn. Soon, a hunchback finds her body by the river. Her jealous, jilted lover is the logical suspect, but he, too, is found dead. Then anonymous notes threaten more deaths, which come to pass. For the first time in his career, the bereaved Geray finds himself stumped....

A particularly weak script all but does the movie in; it plays like bad Cornell Woolrich crossed with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But Lewis does this creaky vehicle proud. He takes his time near the beginning, but then the story  and the storytelling  gain momentum (alas, just about the time the script breaks an axle). Burnett Guffey lighted and photographed the film, with an intriguing leitmotif of peering out of and peeping into windows; there's also an effective score by Hugo Friedhofer, who supplied aural menace to many noirs. A good deal of talent has been lavished on So Dark The Night, but at the end it boils down to not much more than a gimmick  and not a very good gimmick at that. It's a one-trick pony of a movie.


Nothing great here but a nicely acted story about an abused deaf wife (Fonda) of a small time crook (Bochner)who gets involved with one of her husband's plans and his mistress. Sutherland and Weber are cops drawn into what turns out to be a unmysterious murder investigation and the story just flows along.


I saw this at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival and liked it a lot. It worked for me as a slightly weird comedy, because I don't like horror, but there were only a couple of minutes I had to close my eyes.

The dialog was good, the costumes and settings were not far off BBC-quality, which is amazing for an indie film. I liked the way the plot twists and even meanders, it kept surprising me in good ways. I even warmed up to the Willy Grimes character, who I quite disliked at the beginning. It would have been better if there'd been any motivation for the woman to be so interested in going to the island: that felt very much like a plot device.

I am fond of Dominic Monaghan, and he did a good job at pratfalls, horror, and at the more thoughtful moments. Nice voice in the narration, too.

This would be a fun and unusual date movie.


Everything that made the original so much fun seems to absent here. This is simply a 'run of the mill demons on the loose wrecking havoc' slasher, but without the passion that graced the original.

There's nothing new in the story, in fact it seems like they ignore the first one altogether. Here, the demons run loose in a high security apartment building and, naturally, kill most of the residents in grisly fashion. The makeup effects actually seem less convincing here than the first time around. Although the actors weren't exactly brilliant in Demons, in Demons 2 they're actually a lot worse. You don't care about these characters, AT ALL. The plot is nonexistent, the music poor (apart from one Simon Boswell song), it's not scary in the least; it's just not that good.

Easily the worst film Dario Argento has been involved with and Lamberto Bava's also (Bava has a cameo in this film, not a very funny one).

Maybe 3 is too high a rating, but at least I could watch it all and didn't think of stopping midway. My advice; Stick to the original.


Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.

TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring 'China Cry', the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But 'The Omega Code' is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved 'China Cry', I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent 'China Cry' instead.


Now this film isn't going to scare anyone, but it was interesting for two reasons - two big reason and a smaller one- well, that's three reasons, isn't it.

The first reason this is interesting is the special effects. I found them to be quite interesting and somewhat spectacular. To see the hair growing on Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning was creepy, especially when they were participating in a ménage à trois.

Of interest, is the fact that this Marsha Hunt is the famous 'Brown Sugar' of the Rolling Stones song, and that she was in the infamous nude scene in the London cast of the rock musical Hair.

Besides the special effects, there were two other points of note in this film, and they were brought out repeatedly during the closing credits. I lost count, but i swear that Sybil Danning bared those points for us in the closing credits at least a dozen times and maybe many more. Theyu were the most outstanding feature of the film.


First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of 'profiler' (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).


This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.


I caught this movie late night on TV, and was expecting a low-budget campy 'masterpiece', I was surprised with a pretty decent movie. Angelina Jolie's unique acting capabilities (or should I say lack thereof?) make her perfect as an android, and the other actors, while terribly average, are at least not terrible.

There is a plot; a fairly intricate plot at that, involving conspiracies and the lengths a couple (one human, one android) will go to pursue their illegal romance, with a 'big brother'-type figure and android assassin thrown in the mix. The production and sets, also, were much better than I expected. I haven't seen the original Cyborg, so I can't really compare it to much else; granted this film is no Blade Runner, but as a late-night, futuristic guilty pleasure, its worth a watch.


Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.

 The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.

 For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like 'Sixteen Candles' where the 'f' word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.

 I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.

'The Dream Machine' is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.

 My score: 7 (out of 10)


Spoilers.

First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead  I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought  if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.


'Darkness' was entertaining to some degree, but it never seemed to have a plot, lacking one more so than other films that have been accused of this detriment; i.e. 'Bad Taste'. It started off really good, with a man running from something. It was very creepy for these first few minutes, but after a time the film just became entertaining on the level of gore, which was hard to make out at some points due to poor lighting and horrible recording quality anyway. The film was hard to believe because of the juvenile acting, which most of the time, seemed like some friends talking to a video camera, making lines up as they went. That, with a lack of any plot whatsoever, made it look like the film was started without, and ended without, a script of any kind. As said before, gore was this film's only drawing point, which much of the time was hard to make out.


Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith.


This is one of those landmark films which needs to be situated in the context of time.Darkness in Tallinn was made in 1993.It was a period of chaos,confusion and gross disorder not only for ordinary denizens of Estonia but also for countless citizens of other former nations which were a part of mighty Soviet empire.It was in such a tense climate that a young country named Estonia was born.As newly established governments are known to encounter teething problems,Estonia too faced numerous troubles as some corrupt officials manipulated state machinery for filling their dirty pockets by making use of their selfish means.This is one of this film's core themes.Darkness in Tallinn appears as an Estonian film but it was made by a Finnish director Ilka Järvilaturi. He has tried his best to infuse as many possible doses of Estonian humor.This is why one can call it a comedy film of political undertones.As ordinary people are involved in this film, we can say that this film signifies good versus evil.This is not a new concept as it is readily available in most of the religious books of different faiths.Darkness in Talinn shows us as to how ordinary governments can also be toppled by corrupt people.A nice film to watch on a sunny day.


I watched this movie as a preview of a Matthew Barney art exhibit. It certainly prepared me. I almost skipped the exhibit and, in retrospect, probably should have.

Aside from the score being great (Bjork) and the photography rich and colorful, the content was mostly tedious and predictable. Gee, I really needed to see someone wearing pearls to figure out what the pearl-divers were up to. The film was mostly a silly mixture of Japanese cultural references and industrial shots of modern whaling technology being used in a mock-hunt/harvest. The film 'peaks' with enough gratuitous shock-art to turn your stomach.

What was the point of the movie? While others might argue that it is an anti-whaling piece, one could equally argue that it somehow also justifies whaling. Personally I think it was Barney's attempt at 'flashing' the audience with his anal, fecal, self-mutilation, and cannibalistic fetishes.

Bottom line: unless you really get off on Barney's sense of art, don't bother seeing this movie. The message is obscure, the pace slow, and the cultural references pretentious. If you're after shock-art, you'll do better at one of the many 'Undead' movies or hunting down an old copy of Hustler and taking in a fecal-cartoon.


'A young woman unwittingly becomes part of a kidnapping plot involving the son of a movie producer she is babysitting. The kidnappers happen to be former business partners of the son's father and are looking to exact some revenge on him. Our babysitter must bide her time and wait to see what will become of the son and herself, while the kidnappers begin to argue amongst themselves, placing the kidnap victims in great peril,' according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

That acclaimed director René Clément could be responsible for this haphazard crime thriller is the real shocker. Despite beginning with the appearance of having been edited in a washing machine, the film develops a linear storyline. Once you've figured out what is going on, the engaging Maria Schneider (as Michelle) and endearing John Whittington (as Boots) can get you through the film. There are a couple of female nude scenes, which fit into the storyline well.

**** Wanted: Babysitter (10/15/75) René Clément ~ Maria Schneider, John Whittington, Vic Morrow


A brilliant film by the great John Waters. The characters are unforgettable. The acting, script, and camera-work only enhance the overall greatness of this film. Perversion as an art-form. A must see for all. Easily a perfect 10!


I have to confess I fell into the cynical trap of believing that Australians couldn't make drama unless it meant a lot of crying, and I am an Australian. Sad, isn't it? While this movie does involve crying, its not dramatic crying, its honest emotion shining through.

Also, this film is a whodunnit. I knew what the final outcome was going to be when I started watching this, so I tried to guess who it was that was going to do it. I missed by a mile.

I was stunned when I found out the director, Murali Thulluri was only around 21 when he made this film. I would love to shake his hand. He knows how to make a movie. I hope he has more coming.

All of the characters we meet before the main title credit (about 12 minutes in) is an anti hero. All of them troubled in their own way and all of them as selfish as the next one. Even when they are sympathetic.

The saddest scene in the movie, and there are some that are difficult to watch) is the final scene where We're formally introduced to the real main character and we're told of their nephew. That scene made me cry.

My faith in Australian drama has been restored. We're masters at comedy, but I was getting bored with comedy.

Murali, if you happen to check this out, you touched my soul and for that I can only thank you.


This film is excellent! Fear of watching documentary movies? Cancel your shrink and watch little Dieter's story. You won't believe how captivating this fine piece of film making is until you have experienced it. I'm eager to say that it even out goes almost any Vietnam war movie, including Apocalypse Now. It's a real story, it's a personal story, a story about the love for flying, the dream of being a pilot and the nightmare of being shot down above enemy's territory. All is shot in a 'return to...' style - at location, Herzog asking the questions, Dieter answering them in a memorable German-English accent, and with fine remembrance pointing out what happened where about 25 years before. There is this part that I told friends over and over again: bailed out from his US Navy plane, Dieter becomes a POW of the Vietcong. Blindfolded for the greater part of the days, he is being dragged through the Southeast Asian jungle for miles and miles - on bare feet. Tortured, insulted, disorientated, hungered and covered with infectuous wounds, they arrive in a small, friendly village to spend the night. The next morning, after walking for several hours, Dieter discovers someone stole his wedding ring from his finger. That is it. He can take no more. He starts to cry, as a result of complete exhaustion. The Vietcong men react surprised. Dieter manages to explain what happened. Immediately, the group returns to the village and starts searching for the person that stole the ring. They find the man, immediately chop of his finger and return the ring to Dieter. - The movie is full of these mind boggling and surprising situations. The immense cultural differences, the clash of East and West, the fear of the unknown (i.e. all that stands for America on the one hand, the Asian jungle and his secrets on the other) can be sensed the entire movie. Back problems? That's because you sat at the edge of your seat for two hours and didn't notice.


I don't normally go out of my way to watch romantic comedy, and maybe I will in the future after seeing Return to Me. The plot was simple and no secret after the publicity. You don't have to be Einstein to guess what will happen after the first 15 minutes. What you can do is relax and let the cast take you into a world where the 'chemistry' abounds and the good guys win and you can just laugh and have a good time. I LOVE this movie....and have the DVD on order!


yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.


When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.


This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.

This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.

I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on.


Being an avid Carpenter Fan, I really loved this film (although the wigs do leave a lot to be desired!) and agree with many of the comments, that certain areas of her life were absent or not touched on. Whatever - it leaves your curiosity well and truly unsatisfied, so off I went to discover more. I must recommend a book by Ray Coleman - Carpenters - The Untold Story. The book is an intelligent read and unlike the film, is 'real' and down to earth. I hope you enjoy it. I remember Cynthia Gibb from her days in Fame and Gypsy. She is a singer (aswell as dancer) in her own right and I think this was the edge needed to create the character. Some other actresses may have struggled with this. It is ashame the film did not delve deeper into her story. After all this is the film title, but I felt we learnt more about Richard, but I suppose like any performer worth their salt, you should always leave them wanting more!


It was in 1988, when I saw 'The Ronnie and Nancy Show' for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially 'The Ronnie and Nancy Show'. I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself 'I need a shave'. Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!

It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all.

Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere?


I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!

As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.

In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road.


Feeling Minnesota is one of the worst films I have ever seen, it is also one of the most disgusting films ever made. It has to do with a woman who is forced to marry a disgusting mob man. At the wedding she meets his brother Jjaks. They have sex in the house after they eat the cake than decide to run away together. The other brother of course comes after him guns blazing and he kills his wife. Jjaks wakes up to find her corpse in the bathtub and buries her. He than seems to become friends with Jjaks and they try to get money together because someone is blackmailing them because he saw them and the body. This loops about and several characters dies or come back to life, but it never comes together with anything that could be called a good plot. The performances are horrible by pretty much everybody. Cameron Diaz, Keanu Reeves, and Dan Akroyed. The direction, dialogue, and visual effects are just horrible. A disgusting and horrible movie.


German private TV is ill-renowned for copying Dutch and  naturally  US formats. Well, in the case of Edel & Starck, the xeroxing only went as far as the basics: Screwball.

You can't stand screwball comedy? Don't watch Edel & Starck. Seriously. If you expect yet another lawyers' drama thingy similar to Law&Order or something, well, go somewhere else. (Or watch Law&Order as it's quite brilliant at what it does, but I digress.) E&S is funny, often addresses thought-provoking themes, is funny, romantic, funny, funny, and witty, too.

Frankly, I am quite dismayed the writers didn't get better deals after the serial's final. And my cynical nature needs to readjust itself re: private German television productions. German residents will understand what I'm talking about.

In short: Watch it. I don't have the foggiest what the English synchronisation is like, but hey, it's worth learning German just to watch them four seasons. Pseudo-happy end included.


This is pure CRAP, and probably the worst Biblical theme film ever... Absolutely inaccurate, I mean, they've put Sodom and Gomora BEFORE the great flood. They've described Lot as a friend of Noah although he lived after Noah. To make things worse, later Lot became a pirate and attacks Noah's Ark during the flood!!!??? And what's with the merchant who comes along on a boat which is moved over the water with a bicycle mechanism??? And exchanges alcohol for a food and water, and then Noah is portrayed as alcoholic!? Mockery, and continuous blasphemies one after another, and it goes on and on, and on... Film maker and all participants surely secured themselves the front row in hell with this garbage...

Please stay off this crap, because you will save yourself nearly three hours of your life.


The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase 'guaranteed to offend' written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.

This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.

Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!


If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.

This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.

The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him.

I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply 'watch'-- this story.

If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.


Great characters, great acting, great dialogue, incredible plot twists in plain language one of the best shows I've ever seen in my life. Do yourself a favor and watch this show, you won't regret it. This show re-writes the book on Sci-Fi!


A beautiful shopgirl in London is swept off her feet by a millionaire tea plantation owner and soon finds herself married and living with him at his villa in British Ceylon. Although based upon the book by Robert Standish, this initial set-up is highly reminiscent of Hitchock's 'Rebecca', with leading lady Elizabeth Taylor clashing with the imposing chief of staff at the mansion and (almost immediately) her own husband, who is still under the thumb of his deceased-but-dominant father. Taylor, a last-minute substitute for an ailing Vivien Leigh, looks creamy-smooth in her high fashion wardrobe, and her performance is quite strong; however, once husband Peter Finch starts drinking heavily and barking orders at her, one might think her dedication to him rather masochistic (this feeling hampers the ending as well). Still, the film offers a heady lot for soap buffs: romantic drama, a bit of travelogue, interpretive dance, an elephant stampede, and a perfectly-timed outbreak of cholera! *** from ****


Although I had seen 'Gymkata' in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.

After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.

It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of 'Parmistan' to enter and hopefully win 'The Game,' a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like 'Yak Power.' The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.

Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good.


Contains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.

OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.

Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercialand the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after allbut then again, they had to because they're good guys.

The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deathshe meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.

Is CBS insulting us by making this? Surebut we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?

Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.

1 star.


wow! this is a good movie! The acting wasn't good at all, but if you look at some moments in the film, rewind, and watch it again, it is genius! The man in the begin of the film walks with his suitcase against a three. WOW!I never expected that. Then he puts the coke in a suitcase and runs away. I bet that smoking guy against that three was one of his mates who sold the drugs later. And the genius quotes: ''nice shades, i need a pair'' ''their yours.. if you think you can take them..''.. just Brilliant! And the fighting is the best i've seen in a while. Look at the second guy he takes down after he hit the head of the first guy against the table. WHAT A HIT! And in the middle of the film, one guy in a car shot one time, then 3 guys fall, he is really good at aiming. It costs a lot of money to hire these guys like him. The end was brilliant, it was so exciting that james cahill walks 5 minutes up and down the stairs and shoot jason peters after his distraction moves. Jason Peters falls down, and roll over again while he is dead! I can't say with more words how great this movie is!


i actually thought this is a comedy and sat watching it expecting to laugh my ass off. pretty soon in became clear this is no comedy, or at least not a 'Jim Carrey type' one. what kept we watching was the characters - the movie starts with some pretty grim, troubled people, gathered together to try and fight one of their basic fears - fear of water, fear of swimming. we start to get bit by bit into their lives, witness their troubles, guess of their thoughts.

actually i made it look much darker than it actually is, and besides the chain of events soon brings some light and hope to their lives.

i probably wouldn't have watched the movie had i known its not a comedy but rather a drama, but i had good time, enjoyed the story and don't mind i spent about 90 minutes with it.

many films treat the alienation between people in the western world, this movie shows how people can get together and help each other

'and if in the light of dying day you meet her, don't let her pass you by and leave, don't loose her, she is your gift from the sun...'

9/10

peace and love


Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and

raped in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film

then flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is

harassed by a stranger.

Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson and

Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious parents,

laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home wringing

hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated

entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in

'Three Days of the Condor.'

Beller, an amateur photographer, begins getting threatening notes

stuffed in her locker at school. The film makers wisely give us a

whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend, Mattson's

boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about that

overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be a

little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist was

because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture of

the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that

regard.

Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins getting

harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie then

heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up

a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student.

Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from

Beller about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that

day and age.

The suspense here is very real, without going over the top into

scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and

Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The

film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small role,

and everyone is professional.

This was made in 1978, and it shows. I am sure no one had any

idea that this would be reviewed in 2001 by an overcritical horror

movie lover who needs to get to bed and be up early in the

morning, but some of the attitudes here are embarassing. The

teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to explain what

exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school teacher said

that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its own.

After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as warrants

are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case because

Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by whom

she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with

modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously

knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is

an act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch

the attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The

problem is the anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an

afterthought. Before that, we have a tight little suspenser that has

real honest to God characterization. After the rape, everything

changes, filmwise, and not for the better.

I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who could forget

her revealing role in 'The Betsy'), but she has not done anything in

almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good way

back then.

I will recommend 'Are You in the House Alone?!' based on the

acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the first two-thirds of

the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV high school life,

this is your cup of Tab.

This is unrated but contains physical violence, some sexual

violence, and some adult situations.


The first season told pretty much how all elements of the Marine Corps would operate (i.e. ground, air, helicopters and jets) as a team. That's the season I give the high rating to! (True, there are still a lot of 'liberties' taken in season 1, but the stories were more believable.)

The subsequent seasons were a gawd-awful attempt of Melrose Place meets Top Gun!

I was a Marine stationed at Miramar at the time and I remember them shooting the show around the San Diego area. I got to talk to Rod Rowland and James Brolin.

Rowland's character was good to go.

Brolin's character was good in the first season only. For some reason he slacked off after the first ep of the second season.

If you want to see a LITTLE of how the Marine Air Ground team operates, then season one is the one to watch.

If you're into Melrose Place and soap opera like plots with an attempt to merge them into Top Gun, then see the last two seasons.


The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?


This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.


I like many others saw this as a child and I loved it and it horrified me up until adulthood, I have been trying to find this movie and even been searching for it to play again on TV someday, since it originally played on USA networks. Does Anyone know where to buy this movie, or does anyone have it and would be willing to make a copy for me? Also does anyone know if there is a chance for it to be played on TV again? Maybe all of us fans should write a station in hopes of them airing it again. I don't think they did a good job of promoting this movie in the past because no one really knows about, people only know of the Stepford wives and Stepford husband movies. No one is familiar with the fact that there was a children version. Maybe they should also do a re-make of it since they seem to be doing that a lot lately with a lot of my favorite old thriller/horror flicks. Well if anyone has any input Please I Beg Of You write me with information. Thanks Taira tcampo23@aol.com


One of the finest movies I have viewed...Good script, original plot of a man who is haunted about JFK's assassination when he was assigned to protect him on that Cold November day in 1963. Thirty years later another anti-social lunatic wants to assassinate the current president. The secret service agent loses his partner along the way,to the crazed gunmen who schemes,lies and murders anybody in his path who'll stand in his way of his mission.

The movie accompanies with a great memorable score,and a restrained but meaningful romance between Russo and Eastwood....which displays how difficult it is to have a romantic life in that kind of work. Malchovich is great,sure many other candidates could have played the role that he played,but how many could acted with such craftiness,and intellect that he displayed in the movie?

Needless to say,I thought this was a great movie...everytime it's on television I have to watch it..and I own it on dvd! I'm a big Eastwood fan,this only boosted his already fabulous career,and Malchovich's best role to date!


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied.


I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.

Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.

The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.

Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.

The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film.


I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.


...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.

Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.

Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.

As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.


Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale? This is the second adaptation of 'Beowulf' I've been disappointed with in a year. But I have to say, the previous version ('Beowulf & Grendel', starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That one was only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!!

What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in for no particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), or the bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspired acting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis look so horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow?

And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strength throughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters he fought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when he slugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much too reliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly not the powerful Beowulf of the epic poem!

I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of one offhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read 'Beowulf', you'll be infinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for an adaptation!


Nightscream is a TV Movie so it's bound to be pretty dire especially as it's a supposed horror film. This young girl is haunted by dreams as she arrives in a small town where there was a murder of a woman one year before. She is amazed when everyone in the town thinks she looks exactly like the murdered girl. The townsfolk are amazed when she keeps entering dream like trances where she reveals accurate details about the murder and murderer because the police got it all wrong apparently. Thinking that they are in danger of being found out, the murderers (there are two of them) start to hatch a plan to get rid of her before she gets to the real truth. By this time you will have probably fallen asleep and why do the makers of the film have the 'mist-making' machine on full throttle in the dream sequences.


I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.

As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so 'engrossed' with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.

Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)


'Come Undone' appears to elicit a lot of opinions among the contributors to this forum. Granted, it's a film that promises a take on gay life, as most viewers expect and somehow, it gets away from that promise into an introspective view at a young man's soul. The film has a way of staying with us even when it has ended. It is a character study about how a young man gets involved into a love affair with someone so much different than him that, in the end, will leave Mathieu confused, hurt and depressed when things don't go according to what he hoped the relationship would be.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.

Sebastien Lifshitz, the director of the film, has told his story from Mathieu's viewpoint. Most viewers appear to be disoriented by the different times within the film, but there are hints that are not obvious, as one can see, in retrospect. The story is told in flashbacks that might add to the way some people will view the film. This is a story about the doomed the love Mathieu felt for Cedric and the ultimate breakdown of their life together.

First of all, Cedric, the handsome young local, pursues Mathieu until he succeeds in convincing him he likes him. Mathieu feels the attraction for Cedric too. We realize how different both young men are by the way Cedric tells Mathieu's family how he feels school is not for him. On the other hand, Mathieu, who wants to be an architect, finds beauty in the abandoned place where Cedric has taken him. We watch as Mathieu, reading from the guide book, wants Cedric's attention.

When Mathieu comes out to his mother, she wisely tells him about the importance of continuing his career. She also points out about what future both of them would have together, which proves to be true. Mathieu appears to have learned his lesson, the hard way. He goes on to an uncertain life with Cedric and attempts to take his own life. We watch him in the hospital speaking to a psychiatrist that has treated his wounded soul.

The ending might be confusing for most viewers, but there is a moment in the film when Mathieu goes to work in a bar where we see him washing glasses and looking intently to Pierre, the young man who frequents the bar. That is why when Mathieu goes looking for Pierre at his house, appears to be hard to imagine. Yet, we have seen the way Mathieu is obviously interested in Pierre. The last scene at the beach, when Pierre and Mathieu are seen strolling in the sand, has a hopeful sign that things will be better between them as they watch a young boy, apparently lost, but then realizing the father is nearby.

Jeremie Elkaim makes Mathieu one of the most complex characters in recent films. This is a young man who is hard to understand on a simple level. Mathieu has suffered a lot, first with the separation of his parents, then with his depressed mother and with losing Cedric. Stephan Rideau, who has been seen on other important French films, is equally good, as the shallow Cedric.

While 'Come Undone' will divide opinions, the film deserves a viewing because of the complexity and the care Sebastien Lifshitz gives to the story.


The Ascent (1977)

Larisa Shepitko is a name very few are familiar with. Her bright career as a director only lasted a single decade, ended abruptly by a tragic car accident. Despite her short career, she however managed to create some of the best Soviet films of her time. Her last film, The Ascent, is widely regarded as one of the finest Soviet films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, her work remained in obscurity throughout the years that followed, usually only available on rare and poor copies on video. That has now changed thanks to the folks at Criterion. They've released two of Shepitko's best works through their Eclipse department - Wings, and her penultimate masterpiece The Ascent.

Set during the darkest days of WWII in snowy rural Russia, two partisans trudge their way across the land in search of food after their party is attacked by Nazi patrols. They're originally only to go to a nearby farm, but when they arrive they find it razed by the Germans. Not wanting to return empty handed, they continue on deeper into enemy territory. Along the way they must confront not only enemy soldiers, but the harsh conditions of the Russian plains, potential betrayal and their own souls.

The movie does not fall into simplistic plot devices or destinations. It addresses difficult questions with painful rationality. It never takes the easy road or gives us comforting answers. The second half of the film is filled with moral dilemmas. Shepitko shows us the intimate horrors of war through the internal conflict between fellow Russians - those who collaborated and those who fought back. While she does show the collaborators as the clear heels, she nevertheless also shows why many turned to such tactics - survival.

The film contains a number of religious references, particularly to the lead up to the crucifixion. This is a spiritual journey, into the hearts, souls, and minds of the two partisans and those they encounter. Shepitko and her cinematographer capture the journey in beautiful black and white photography. The camera moves in long shots, similar to the camera-work of another of Russia's greatest filmmakers, Andrei Tarkovsky. Shepitko, like many others, was clearly influenced by Tarkovsky's style, and the Ascent takes some of its rhythmic notes from Ivan's Childhood. It is a stunning film to look at, and does a fantastic job of capturing the cold and terrifying atmosphere of occupied Russia.

Shepitko's husband would pay homage to her great film a decade later. Elem Klimov made his own war masterpiece with one of the greatest films I've ever seen - Come and See. The story and themes of that film were clearly influenced by The Ascent. Though that film is also a fairly obscure one, it received far more attention that any of Shepitko's films. That however acted as a bridge to Shepitko, and has been one of the best helps to keeping her work alive.

The Ascent is a truly magnificent film, and rightly should be considered one of the best films of the 70s. It's stunning cinematography is inspiring; its mood is frighteningly authentic; and its lessons are unforgettable. It is, in any definition of the word, nothing less than a masterpiece. How unfortunate that Shepitko's career was cut short just as it was hitting its peak.


The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.

However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.

With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.

Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.

Not recommended.


I was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an 'engrossing' piece of work.

So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by 'mgconlan-1'), and pretty much can agree with its details.

Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly 'good,' but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.

Give it a '3*' because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters.


It is really a shame that IMDb doesn't let you give negative votes. This is the most hideously awful show ever foisted on the American public by our usually-likable neighbors to the north. The parents are a troglodyte and a neurotic hag. He is as charming as a well-used fire hydrant, with the same hygiene standards. She is a wax museum mannequin programmed with more neuroses than the entire cast of THE VIEW. The kids are non-entities if female and repulsive beyond belief if male, especially the title character. The boy is a serious contender for most insanely smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, and vain male character on Disney, which is saying something. This show was obviously conceived as the anti-BRADY BUNCH, but it comes off as the anti-Christ. And why is the photography so dark?


This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with 'dramatic' angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).


THE ASCENT is a very worthwhile addition to recent re-releases from the Soviet Union. Director Larisa Shepitko's 1977 film examines the moral ramifications of allegiance and honor in German occupied Russia during The Second World War. On foot and in a blizzard, two members of a partisan Soviet group leave to locate supplies, and are captured by Nazi soldiers. The focus of the movie is on how each man handles or internalizes his moral alternatives. One chooses dignity and integrity, while the other opts for collaboration with the enemy. However, in the end, he cannot abide by his selfish decision. The film makes much use of slow, wide-angle pans which shift to extreme closeups, and highlight the spiritual quandary within the souls of each man. This is not a great film, but it does effectively portray an intense moral dilemma against the backdrop of a harsh and frigid Soviet wilderness.


Although I was born in the year that this movie came out and had never heard of it until my junior year of high school (1996) when I saw it I became totally engrossed laughing and crying and feeling along with the characters because me and my friends were them.

Their hair, clothes and speech were outdated but the emotions and the desperation of each situation were so familiar! I remember thinking how real it was and how I wished that they would make movies like that still.

In fact I saw this movie the night after I had been at a crazy party (not so unlike the one in Jay's house) which had been crashed by what we considered the loser derelicts who hung out on the fringes of our crowd. A world class BS'er and 'responsible' mother figure type I identified immediately with Jeanie (I was also the one with a car) although I had a little bit of Madge's insecurities floating around in there too. My best friend was a Deidre and her good friend from childhood was our Annie.

Watching the scene when Jeanie is in school or the one where her and her boyfriend break up and then she is telling Madge how much she loved him felt like conversations and situations I had personally had.

Now at the age of 27 I recently saw the movie again and felt a surge of emotions because it was like watching back a piece of my own youth (though none of my friends died). I think this is a must see for all girls 13 and up.


'Ordinary Decent Criminal' is sad because it is obviously trying to succeed and equally obviously hasn't a chance in hell of making it apparently owing to the absence of a clear sense of purpose. A abysmal failure at droll Irish comedy with Spacey as a thief who enjoys outsmarting the cops and his competition becoming a sort of folk hero in his own mind, this flick manages to be mildly amusing when it's trying to be funny, slightly more than boring when it's trying to be interesting, and forget sentimental or poignant or endearing though it takes shots at those qualities as well. 'Ordinary Decent Criminal' has a clumsy screenplay, naive direction, journeyman execution, thin story, poor casting, mediocre acting, and eventually becomes lost in itself and sinks into a mire of hopeless mediocrity. Pass on this one. (D)


...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.

The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.

The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.

One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.

In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.


I'm a sucker for mob/gangland movies, so I rented this movie. This movie is a complete train wreck. With all the big name actors in this film, I can not believe how bad it was. It was so bad, that I began laughing hysterically towards the end of the film. The actor better known as Zues or the big dude from the Ice Cube movie 'Friday' does an incredible overacting job throughout the film. First thing I told Blockbuster when I returned the film was to remove this garbage from their shelves. Do not rent this movie, unless you want to waste two hours of your life. If they come out with a sequel, I wonder if it will be twice as bad as the first. I will be more cautious when renting so called 'mob/gangland' movies.


I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!

The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.

Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.

The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.

There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.

Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).

Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).

There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!

Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)

The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.


Strummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome 'Filth And The Fury' I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better.


I caught the North American premiere of this at the Chicago International Film Festival. I was beyond disappointed. From the mood in the audience, I wasn't the only one.

The film takes a long time to get to the conflict, and then refuses to resolve it, opting instead to tell us the story is 'To Be Continued'. Is it a spoiler to reveal that a movie has no ending? I consider it more of a warning. This is, at best, only half a movie- and not the good half.


Well another shootem up. Typical run around film with guns, revenge, and violence. Not much of a story. In fact I forgot most of what this film is about. Don't rent this one. I think the exercise infomertial would be more entertaining during late night.


This film is bad, yes, but had the producers used a REAL KANGAROO, it would have killed the actor it was boxing with. I am an Australian and I have seen two seven foot tall male 'Roos fighting each other, it is not a pretty sight as the object is for one or the other to kill it's opponent,(this is there way of securing the herd of females) and there are incidents where someone has boxed a kangaroo, and been injured or killed, so when you see a kangaroo on TV or Film it is likely to be a female, or Animated, as it is a good idea not to injure actors (they might be annoyed at losing the ability to breath). There is a strange idea that Australian animals are cute and cuddly, that is false, many are dangerous (10 of the 12 most deadliest snakes live here)and most are just plain ugly (Koalas are as soft as steal wool). So if you come to Australia BE CAREFULL!!!