To put it simply, I enjoyed this film. The reason for my interest & enjoyment was not related to anything other than the subject matter itself. I had heard tales from my mother and grandmother about how Northern England working class life and attitudes used to be (as experienced by them)and this is an interesting depiction that seems to faithfully represent what they told me. In particular, the paternalistic but overbearing father who 'knows' what is best for his family along with his stubborness when this paradigm is challenged. (Not much has changed there then!!)

People who have seen the play will probably be disappointed with the film because the story does not easily transfer across the different media. In a sense however, the film is an historical document and I personally enjoyed it, if only because of the way it conveyed a social phenomenon.


I had never seen Richard Thomas play a bad guy. I wasn't sure I would like him this way. And I wasn't sure he could pull it off. But this astounded me. He sent shivers up my spine and caused me to take a closer look at street people. The movie is engrossing and fast paced. Bruce Davison is convincing but all he can really play is a nice guy. The real talent here is Thomas. The ending was a little clumsy but perhaps that's the way real people would fight... If you are a Thomas fan you MUST see him here at his best being bad!


Owen (David Krumholtz) and Chloe (Denise Richards) are a youngish couple living in Manhattan. Owen is a moderately successful magazine writer while Chloe is an aspiring actress. Happily for her, Chloe gets big role on a sitcom and temporarily moves to Hollywood. Missing her, Owen books a flight to LaLa Land, as a surprise. When he arrives at her set trailer, however, the 'house' is shaking, as Chloe and her hunky co-star are having a little romantic tryst. The writer and the actress are through. Hurt and mad as a hatter, Owen goes back to NYC. Sympathetic friends decide to set him up on a blind date with Nadine (Milla Jovovich) to get him out of his sulky funk. But, it goes badly, as the duo mix like oil and water, mostly due to each having a strong personality and Owen's huge shoulder chip. Yet, over the next few months, astonishingly, Nadine and Owen become pals, who confide in each other and hang out. Can it turn into something more? Well, who the heck cares! This film is so STUPID that most folks will yank it out of the DVD player after the first ten minutes. The script is pathetic, dismal, and, oh, stupid, too. Then again, Krumholtz gives a very obnoxious and offensive performance as well. Jovovich is not much better but who could look good with the lines she has to spout? William Baldwin, too, reaches a career low with his crude and sex-crazy role as Owen's brother. The only cast member who is any good is Richards but she must cringe when she looks back at this one. Okay, the costumes and production values are adequate. Then, too, there is ONE clever element in that, occasionally, the characters will speak their lines but cartoon bubbles will appear above their heads with the words of what they are truly thinking. That doesn't save the film from 'bomb' status. Don't be stupid, dear film and romcom lovers. Do not rent, buy, or borrow this gigantic turkey. I am the stupidest person on earth, today, for watching this THING until the bitter end.


This is my favorite Hal Hartley movie. All his movies are small gems. I love independent movies and I hope Hal Hartley never goes mainstream or sells out. What if the Lord Jesus did come back and loved his people so much that he could not open the final book and destroy the unbelievers? It was nice to see P. J. Harvey in a movie since I am a fan of her music. Don't watch this if you are a fan of cookie cutter Hollywood movies, you will be disappointed.


New guy at an armored car company gets talked into becoming involved in an armored car heist by his fellow drivers in order to score some quick cash. The problem is that they really don't have much of a plan and when complications arise things turn deadly.

Fast moving popcorn action film has a great deal going with it. First off the film is under 90 minutes so the film doesn't really have the time to bog down in plot. It cranks everything up and just goes. Next the film has some great action sequences so one moves towards the edge of ones seat. Lastly the film has a stellar cast that include Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Lawrence Fishburne. Its a first rate cast that sells and covers over the stories short comings.

This isn't brain surgery its a popcorn movie and on that level it scores highly. Worth a look.


This is a great story of family loyalty which, thankfully, doesn't resort to the usual tricks (or at least the ones I'm used to seeing in American and European films) of supersentimentality or high dramatic tension.

It's very watchable and very lovable. It has some beautiful cinematography, but doesn't rely on that alone to entertain.


This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it. The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies. There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter. That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD. No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself. Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad. A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.


I normally don't comment on movies on IMDB, but in this case I feel like I should. I love movies, and I want to make them, and this movie is a perfect example of fine filmmaking.

This is one of the few movies that I have seen on the small screen (originally seeing it air on AMC, I believe, and then on the DVD I just watched) that made me get that feeling in the pit of my stomach. That little gnawing sensation that the director would hope you feel while watching his thriller.

Jack Lemmon's performance is a fine one, and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas follow. I felt so much empathy of Lemmon, who's character Jack Godell, only wanted people to listen to his warning.

But what impresses me most about this film is the lack of a score, and this is also what makes it beautiful to me. Apart from the opening titles there are no background music to increase the tension, because none is needed. And while the credits run, white on black, in silence it drives the point home.

I use the movie as an example to anyone who says music makes the movie. I think the movie should make the movie and the music should only amplify that. But for The China Syndrome music is not necessary to get across the realism and the urgency depicted here. The characters portray all of this far better than the music ever could.

I highly recommend this movie, it is one of my favorites. If you like movies, you won't be disappointed. If you like movie soundtracks more, you might not want to give this one a go.


I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..


I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.

I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors  never!

He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word 'art' in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.

Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?

He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.

Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them.


The acting is excellent in this film, with some great actors. It was fun to see Fred McMurray as a young man. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful, and some of them appear forced and contrived. It's in the script, though, not the fault of the acting.

The 10 line requirement forces me to write some more...Hmmm. Loved Carole Lombard's My Man Godfrey, because it is a comedy and, while the acting is wonderful, the story line and the script itself, wins the day. Carole Lombard is pretty and a wonderful actress. I will try to watch Fred McMurray's features.


This Cecil B. DeMille epic of the old West contains what may be Jean Arthur's finest performance, as a hysterical, eccentric, incurably amoral, but devotedly doting Calamity Jane. She really pulled it off! Gary Cooper is at his most taciturn, but manages some occasional pithy sayings: 'The plains are big, but trails cross ... sometimes.' The story is a pastiche to end all pastiches. All the cowboy heroes of Western lore seem to be in there somehow except for Jesse James. Even Abraham Lincoln opens the story in person (or at least, DeMille would have us believe so). There is no room for anything so evanescent as subtlety, this is a 'stomp 'em in the face' tale for the masses. A remarkable thing about this film however is that it is a very early full frontal attack on what Eisenhower was eventually to name 'the military industrial complex'. It isn't just a story about gun-runners, but about arming anyone for money, and doing so from the heart of Washington. But let's not get into politics, let's leave that to DeMille, who can be guaranteed to be superficial. The chief interest of this film all these years later is that it uses the first film score composed by George Antheil, who has a lot to say about the job in his autobiography, 'Bad Boy of Music'. Antheil seems to have originated 'the big sound' adopted by all subsequent Westerns, whereby the plains sing out with the voices and sounds of countless cowboys in the sky, celebrating the open spaces and interweaving common melodies. That is why it does not sound at all unusual, because we have heard it a thousand times. But he seems to have been the first to summon up the combined rustlings of all the sage brush into this symphony of the open skies which has entered into American mythic lore, and given it a soundtrack which has never varied since then, corny as it may be, but doubtless appropriate. It is amusing to see Anthony Quinn in an early appearance as a Cheyenne Indian. Gabby Hayes is in there somewhere, but you miss him in the crowd. Gary Cooper overtops them all, looming large, - but when did he ever loom small?


It is so bad, I can not tear myself away. I keep asking myself, 'Why?' 'Why?' with every scene.

There is no continuity, but then again if you want to make a very overtly homosexual movie with a fetishistic attitude towards all things Big, Big boats, Big Boys, Big planes, then you don't have to worry about things like plot or character. I am baffled, and very concerned that the CAG looks so much like Richard Pryor. It seems wrong to put a Pryor look alike in such a terrible movie. But I can't tear myself away. This movie is the first movie I've ever reviewed. That is how phenomenally bad and bizarre it is. It motivated me to join this site. I have counted 50 main characters. Perhaps if I was stoned I could follow this, but as it is, I feel like I'm in some kind of never ending bad dream, where it is always 1988, and we were the greatest cocktry on earth.


This movie should be required viewing for all librarians or would-be librarians. All of the best lines are directly related to librarianship. The public library vs. academic library argument is a classic argument waged among librarians and library school students. It also breaks many librarian stereotypes. Librarians might even be capable of having fun -- even if they don't *usually* have sex in the romance languages section! (The best movie about librarians? Desk Set, with Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, of course.)


A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)


Hey, remember when Hal Hartley was brilliant? What a time that was. I'd say the Book of Life was when things really started going downhill, but I will say that at least he went uphill from this one. A movie that looks like it was filmed on someone's cell phone wouldn't have to be a bad thing if it was distinguished by an interesting story and dialog, but alas, those are missing, along with Hartley's spare, quirky dialog. In their place is tedious exposition on themes of Christian end of times and a trite story of a modern Jesus in a quandary, packaged in a trying-to-be-hip modern world where everyone looks like someone out of a Hal Hartley movie. While it picks up a little in its second half, it's never enjoyable, or especially sensible. What the hell happened to you, Hartley?


This is a long lost horror gem starring Sydney Lassick ('Carrie' and others) and Barbara Bach. It is sometimes difficult to locate a copy of this film but it's worth it. This film is creepy yet cheesy at the same time. It seems that 3 young newswomen (Karen, Vicky, and Jennifer) travel to the small city of Solvang, California to cover a festival when a mix-up occurs involving their hotel room and they seek refuge at the home of Earnest Keller (Lassick) and his strange wife Virginia. Vickie stays behind, feeling ill, as the other 2 are off to film their story. She is soon murdered at the house, in a VERY cheesy way by some unknown force hiding in the ventilation system (she is decapitated by the closing cover of the vent as it comes crashing down on her while she is being tugged through and into the basement). Soon Karen returns and she is murdered in an even more brutal fashion by having her face rammed through the vent cover. Jennifer is fighting with her (ex?)lover in a rather boring sub plot and when she returns home, her hosts (whom by now we have discovered are brother and sister and that whatever it is that is in the basement is their son) devise a plot to try to murder her as well. Virgina does not totally agree with Earnest's plan to murder Jennifer but she is tricked into going into the basement where she meets Junior. Here the film turns almost comic as Junior (portrayed hysterically by Stephen Furst) is a deformed, mentally deficient, manchild whose actions and motions will cause a few chuckles even though it's supposed to be scary. This is where the pace of the film picks up and the ending is well done. The actors/actresses do a terrific job with the material especially Lassick, Furst, and Bach and although it's not the most horrifying film ever made it is highly entertaining!


In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, 'Bowery Bugs' from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.


I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough.


I was pleased to see that she had black hair! I've been a fan for about 30 years now and have been disgusted at the two earlier attempts to film the stories.

I was pleased that the screenwriters updated the period to include a computer, it didn't spoil it at all. In fact I watched the film twice in one day, a sure sign that it was up to standard. This is what I do with books that I like as well.

I thought all the characters were well depicted and represented the early days of Modesty Blaise extremely well as evinced in both book and comic strip. I would also have to disagree with a comment made by an earlier reviewer about baddies having to be ugly. Has he actually read the books?

I thought this was a very good film and look forward to sequels with anticipation.


The brilliant Chuck Jones, master of Warner Bros. cartoon comedy, brings us the first (?) Pepe LePew cartoon. An alley cat, tired of being pushed around, paints himself in the colors of a skunk, and with a healthy dose of Limburger, turns the tables on his tormentors. Then along comes Pepe, and you know the rest. Many of Pepe's famous gags were born here, including his chase/hop, in which he hops casually along while his prey runs himself to exhaustion.

In my opinion, Warner Bros. cartoons became less inventive and more ho-hum in the 50s. This 1947 'toon is one of the few examples of Mel Blanc putting his absolutely crazy voice into Pepe's mouth. But the kicker is the ending, where Pepe is revealed to be an American 'wolf in skunk's clothing'! A must see! Classic Warner Bros...


Gregory Peck and Gig Young are competing for the same girl and after Peck sends Young on a very dangerous mission, they blame him for his reasons. Feeling guilty, Peck goes on an almost impossible task of defending a fort, where they are outnumbered by the Indians. Peck chooses for this mission soldiers which he considers to be the scum of the earth and the actors that play these soldiers, Ward Bond, Lon Chaney Jr., Neville Brand among others, are excellent. The script is derived from a novel by Charles Marquis Warren who was a specialist in westerns, as a writer, director and producer. The idea of using this type of men as heroes inspired many films that came out later including 'The Dirty Dozen' made in 1967.


Well, first of all - i am a big fanatic of horror movies, but however - I am pretty sick of all those damn American horror movies. They are all about the same thing - blood and violence. It's not even creepy. Well, it's nothin wrong with the blood and all that - doesn't even bother me - but that's not what makes a movie creepy! That's why I find this movie entertaining - it's fun to see a satire which is making fun of the koncept 'main horror USA'. American splatter/gore-movies, they are not suppose to be creepy, only funny. That's OK. But when they're suppose to be 'creepy', it mostly gets pathetic. However, there are a few great american horror movies (Poltergeist, Psycho, Birds), but in the end it's all the same thing. That's why this movie came as a relief. Evil Ed is not just a cult movie - it's a classic! I can't wait untill master director Anders Jacobsson makes another goddamn splatter movie! Untill than I have to watch Evil Ed again - and again - and again! But I don't care - it is such an outstanding movie!


Living just down the Hwy from Georgetown, Co...I remember this movie well and thought it was great! The story seems like something John would do even in real life, but there is something that I will always remember most about the movie. For those of you who don't live in Denver...every Christmas, the city of Denver, Co puts up a fabulous display of lights and decorations at the Civic Center in downtown Denver. Well...as it so happened, during the filming of this movie, a Nativity scene was needed. So...it was borrowed from the Civic Center display...with permission, by the way! Someone had forgotten to advice the powers that be, and it was reported stolen! A frantic search began with law enforcement for a few days. Finally, someone spoke up and remembered loaning it to the film crew in Georgetown! It was returned and put back where it belonged! As it turns out...it wasn't featured all that much in the movie...you can barely see it during the Christmas show with the children. It did create quit a disturbance though...


I watched this movie 11 years ago in company with my best female friend. I got my judgment teeth pulled out so I didn't feel very good.

I ended up liking it big time. It's a hard watch if you take in account that it deals with friendship, unwanted betrayal, power, money, drug traffic, and the extreme hard situation that deals with living in a foreign jail.

The acting is on it's prime level. Two of the women that I lust the most star and that's a good thing. Claire Danes is as cute and charming as always while Kate Beckinsale is extremely hot and delivers a fine performance. Bill Pullman is also great and demonstrates his histrionic qualities.

There are many plot twists to dig from and make it an interesting visual experience. Plus it shows the difficult times at Thailand.

This is an underrated movie. Not many films like this one have come up in recent history. It should make you reflex about many things...


A young doctor and his wife are suddenly expecting a child. Both are disturbed about a two hour memory lapse on the night of conception. Interesting twist on an hackneyed story. Very good F/X and interesting editing. Jillian McWhirter is outstanding in a cast that features Arnold Vosloo, Wilford Brimley and Brad Dourif. Brimley brings normalcy to the outlandish. Kudos to director Brian Yuzna.


For starters I have always been a fan of the Batman cartoons because the theme is so universal, 'that everyone alive has an alter-ego'. This is true in the Mystery of Batwoman. While the overall story is good I'm disappointed that they haven't really done much for the franchise with this.

Throughout the movie, you are trying to find out who the identity of Batwoman is, unfortunately you can find out by easily looking at the cast of credits posted on this website (so if you haven't seen it already don't go there). I was sort of disappointed that they didn't make the movie longer. 75 minutes is way too short for any movie. The secret identity of batwoman also comes far too early in the movie, sort of midway, and becomes anti-climatic afterward because you know the good guys will always win and that the new character known as Batwoman will disappear after the movie is over.

I'm also not too sure about the new animation style used in this movie. I love the sleek new characters but there should be some more detail where detail is called for. Some parts of the animation look so awkward and rigid that it grabs your attention right away diverting your attention away from the storyline. I also didn't really like the bright atmosphere used in most of the scenes, it sort of loses its dark and gothic feel which is Batman. Similarly we should've gotten to know more about batwoman's personality so that we can build the same deep compassionate feeling that we do with Bruce Wayne. Also I think the fight with Bane should have been done better. In typical children's fashion the bad guy meets his demise too easily either by tripping, falling, getting electricuted or doing something dumb that works against them. Come to think of it there wasn't even one drop of blood spilled in this movie either.

Bottom line, its a good entertaining flick and I recommend anyone who's a Batman fan to watch it. It has good storyline, universal appeal and even great acting to top it off. I just wish that they could have delivered more permanent change to the story by making Batwoman stay to make things more interesting. Not just introduce her and then kick her off once she's done. I'd also like to see someone else figure out the mystery for a change finally. To have some other than Batman solve the mystery and fill him in later with the details.

I hope there are more animated movies to come and look forward to the time when we will actually be able to see the breakup between Bruce Wayne and Barbra Gordan. He's been stringing her along forever and doesn't even like her and I can't believe that she was dumb enough to fall in love with someone 20 years older. I also want to see the time when Tim Drake leaves because he is getting sick of the old man. In short I want to see all of the things that led the characters to where they will be in Batman Beyond. Otherwise the same repeated formula will just end it faster than if they just decided to move on with the story.


An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.


I particularly enjoyed Delly's review of this film and agree that Howard is not the only 'damaged' character. Howard is rather ruthlessly 'set-up' by the script, but there is no evidence that his previous employer is actually dead or, if she is, that he murdered her. Howard doesn't know and neither do we. In terror and confusion at seeing the woman lying there, he bolts. However, he never actually harms Helen Gordon, no matter how enraged he is. Indeed, he reacts with horror at Helen's fainting spell and the fact that he is holding a pair of scissors...then he resumes his tidying up and greets the recovered Helen with the almost pathetic ' I'm very tired now. I think I'll go home'. Frankly, I don't think he's a psychopath. A sick puppy, certainly, but not a psychopath.

The problem with Howard is that he has no real male identity. He wanted to serve his country, but his mental condition denies him a place in the army. He is singularly rootless and isolated: no wife, no girl, no home (again, at least as far as we know). And, he does a woman's job - 'Floor's are my speciality'. Helen's niece ruthlessly strips away this pride in his thoroughness by exclaiming caustically that she would want a man with a real job. Also, although he finds himself strongly attracted to Helen, he is unable or unwilling to do more than scare her by making a strong sexual pass. He is remarkably powerless - can't fight, can't work, can't make love.

Helen is justifiably terrified, however. She tries to connect to him but, finding that he doesn't respond normally (i.e. way outside the comfort zone provided by her rose-tinted memories of husband Ned), unwittingly presses all Howard's buttons by lying to him in her attempt to escape.

Both characters, trapped in the house, trapped by fear, neuroses, rage and memory, deserve sympathy. I know the sudden ending has disappointed some reviewers, but I felt it fitted well, as it offered a kind of release to the characters. Helen is freed, I think, from the past. When Howard tries on her husband's army coat, Helen's disgusted reaction is highlighted. She no doubt feels that the 'sacredness' of Ned's possessions has been violated but, hopefully, her need to keep everything 'untouched' has been lost in the reality of her own struggle with danger. Perhaps she can move on.

Howard is also freed - from his endless cycle of anger, hurt and violence. Whether he moves on to treatment or to jail is debatable, but I hope it's the former.

Great performances from Ryan and Lupino. I prefer 'On Dangerous Ground', but this is pretty good too.


One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.

At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's 'Angels' who 'haunted' the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they 'haunt' the California Angels.

Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans.


Brilliant adaptation of the largely interior monologues of Leopold Bloom, Stephen Dedalus, and Molly Bloom by Joseph Strick in recreating the endearing portrait of Dublin on June 16, 1904 - Bloomsday - a day to be celebrated - double entendre intended! Bravo director Strick, screenwriter Haines, as well as casting director and cinematographer in creating this masterpiece. Gunter Grass' novel, The Tin Drum filmed by Volker Schlöndorff (1979)is another fine film adaptation of interior monologue which I favorably compare with Strick's film.

While there are clearly recognized Dublin landmarks in the original novel and in the film, there are also recognizable characters, although with different names in the novel. For example, Buck Mulligan with whom Dedalus lives turns out to be a then prominent Dublin surgeon.

This film for all of its excellence is made even richer by additional viewings.

Brian invinoveritas1@AOL.com 15 June 2008


I've seen three of the Animatrix episodes, and this is my favorite of all of them. The Second Renaissance provided a flimsy back story to the already flimsy universe. Program was a stylistically impressive number, it just felt kind of silly. I guess what gives this one it's special touch is the direction from Shinichiro Watanabe, director of the incredibly popular (and for good reason) series Cowboy Bebop. It has some of the best elements of Bebop: slick, sci-fi adventure, a no-nonsense, slightly apathetic hero working for hire, a bounty-head (more or less), and a chase scene, all wrapped up in an excellent film-noir packaging. Watanabe's Tarantino-style slickness comes through here full throttle.


If you live in the suburbs, are relatively well off financially, and do not really have much contact with the city life of england, then this is the comedy for you. Not something a mass audience would go for, but if you're like these characters they show you'll love it to pieces. Overall this is a comedy that the snobs at the BBC will sit back and laugh at for their pleasure and only a select few of the publics. Comparing it to BBC Comedys like Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, and other classics, this series tends to drift away from the BBC's regular product to the audience and deliver to somewhat of a folk culture.


Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

 However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

 2.5/10 Bleah


Alright if you want to go see this movie just give me our money I'll

kick you were it counts and you'll have the same amount of fun. I'll

even guarantee more fun. This movie once again shows what happens when

you can't get any one else to hire your family and your forced to make

your own movies. Same, I'm going through puberty humor jokes, just

dumber and grosser. This movie is really a disgrace to movie goers. They

try to shock you into laughing because you can't believe the levels they

have to stoop to make you laugh. So my offer above stands as


Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars.


Love and war did happen on the other side of the iron curtain and by looking losely at it love was just as strong as in the West and war was often more poignant (should I say more realistic ?).

This film is as much about war and love as it is about the Soviet thaw of Mr K's era. It also reminds us than the best war movies were not necessarily made in the 1990's with rivers of hemoglobin and millions of USD spent on special effects and marketed actors.

This movie is a classic of Soviet cinema and a outstanding picture of one of the greatest human tragedies : war.


Although the movie is clearly dated, audiences can still easily identify with the plight of hapless Buster in this timeless and very funny underdog tale. Buster fights against unkindly odds in three different ages: the Stone Age, The Roman Age, and the Moden Age, playing almost the same character with just a change of scenery to help us identify the different 'ages'. In this movie we see one of the earliest comedic depictions of the 'caveman' stereotype, who wins his love not by romance but by brute force, as well as a funny twist on Roman gladiatorial combat, two comedic sketches that long predate such spoofs as Mel Brooks' 'History of the World: Part I'. The underlying theme of the movie is simple yet convincing: Although the times may have-a-changed, we still face the same struggles even in modern times that we fought in prehistoric times in order to 'win the girl' (keep in mind this is the theme of 1923 America, a time when chauvinism was still en vogue). It is interesting to look at this movie over eighty years later, and consider how dramatically things have changed from this movie's 'modern times' to now.


For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.

There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.

The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.


Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.

Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride.


Two Soldiers is an excellent example of fine film-making. The director and producer took a heart-warming story and brought it to life with a very skilled and dedicated cast, excellent cinematography, and very creative artistry.

The relaxed back-woods lifestyle of the brothers was depicted with great details, and contrasted sharply with the militaristic lifestyle that they were thrust into. The interaction between the brothers brought laughter and tears, as they struggled with a hard but peaceful life in the back-woods of North Carolina and an even harder life of war.

The acting was great, particularly from the younger brother who is new to the big screen (played by Jonathan Furr), to the older brother (played by Ben Allison) and the powerful perfomrance by the Colonel (played by Ron Perlman). The performance was extremely well cast.

It was a pleasure to enjoy the magic of Two Soldiers, and I heartily recommend it to audiences of all ages.


I saw the movie on its North American premiere (July 14, 2004) at the Fantasia Festival. I was slightly disappointed as I had been expecting a more epic, ensemble cast movie along the lines of Musa the Warrior. Instead, the movie concentrated only a much smaller number of characters. Still, the movie was solid, thoughtful and visually intriguing. There were slightly jarring tone shifts from the dominant thoughtful and realistic tone of confused loyalties, intrigue and blood, versus the lighter, more flamboyant, martial arts sequences. It almost seemed as though the filmmakers couldn't make up their minds about whether the movie was supposed to be a martial arts 'flick' or a historical epic. The story touches nicely on the issue about the need for loyalty versus the need to adapt to new situations. Is it really worth your life and those of your friends to be loyal to one's master or does there come a time when one must submit to the winds of change? Is there perhaps greater courage in leaving the old ways for new ones? How does one decide? These questions are raised in this movie, and ironically, there is the suggestion that the answer given, may in fact be the wrong one!


A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.

SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.

This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).

MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.


My only minor quibble with the film I grew up knowing as STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, is the fact that the wonderful RAYMOND MASSEY is relegated to the last twenty or so minutes in the trial scene. And the trial itself, IMO, is the least interesting portion of this fascinating fantasy.

David NIVEN and KIM HUNTER are wonderfully cast as the young lovers, but it's ROGER LIVESEY who gives the liveliest and most credible performance. French accented MARIUS GORING is a delight (he even gets in a remark about Technicolor) as the heavenly messenger sent to reclaim Niven when his wartime death goes unreported due to an oversight. Goring has some of the wittiest lines and delivers them with relish.

Seeing this tonight on TCM for the first time in twenty or so years, I think it's a supreme example of what a wonderful year 1946 was for films. The Technicolor photography, somewhat subdued and not garish at all, is excellent and the way it shifts into B&W for the heavenly sequences is done with great imagination and effectiveness.

The opening scene is the sort that really draws a viewer into the fantasy aspects of the story--and Niven's tense talk with radio operator Hunter while his plane is crashing toward earth, unexpectedly leads to a memorable romantic encounter. Truly a marvelous film from beginning to end, another triumph for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.


Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it '...underrated...' The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends.


WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,'Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?' To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...


I saw 'Caddyshack II' when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.


Rob Roy is and underrated epic of passion and action!SOME MILD SPOILERS WITHIN. Liam Neeson gives a towering performance as Rob Roy MacGregor,one of the best in his career.Jessica Lange is letter-perfect as his wife Mary.They have the most passion and chemistry I've seen in a screen couple.John Hurt gives his best snotty aristocrat performance.Tim Roth portrays one of the great screen villains.His rape of Mary is repugnant and harrowing.He really is a magnificent bastard in this movie.The final duel between Rob and Cunningham is one of the best swordfights ever.Well scripted ans scored,and Michael Caton-Jones direction is flawless. 10 out of 10.


Released two years before I was born, this Oscar-winning movie has it all - lavish Technicolor sets and costumes, breathtaking cinematography, superb wall-to-wall Gershwin music, superior choreography, a lighter-than-air screenplay, and great performances by Kelly, Levant, Foch, Guetary, and Caron. Hollywood doesn't make 'em like this anymore. Definitely, this is my favorite movie of all time, a standard by which I judge all other films. ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY!


Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure. He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem. An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller. It's not.

City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and 'realistic' citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind. In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc. And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen! But again, it really doesn't.

Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several 'confession' monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the 'real world' of politics and society. But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.


LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.

I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like 'if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)'. He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. 'Go see it, it really is good!' Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.

LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the 'Friends' school of comedy; their motto: 'If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness'. Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto 'Friends' had was: 'always include pointless, dull sentimentality', which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: 'what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant'. Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).

Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...

After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a 'serious actor'. What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. 'recognition from their peers' (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as 'Groundhog Day', 'Quick Change', 'Mad Dog & Glory', 'Kingpin', 'What about Bob?' and 'Ed Wood'. Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as 'Hamlet', 'Lost In Translation' (you just can't get away from these 'ultra-talented Coppolas'), and 'Broken Flowers'. Compare those two batches.

One guy described LTL 'funny as heck'. Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks...


This Movie is a warning to all people sat surfing the internet on a typical day at the office. My Warning is ,Do not reveal too much about yourself, 2 Be careful who you cross!! ,there are spies on this internet thing. I thought that it was so scary what that man and woman combination did to poor Angela Bennett, I did not realise that somebody could take ones life away in one click of this mouse Angela I thought did a sterling job of outwitting Jack Delvin and that awful girl my question is, why does that computer make that noise when it works? like a clicking sound mine does not do this or this one. This film also tells you that there is fraud on this internet Also why couldn't Angela do the virus destroyer programme at a CyberCafe? I also thought that like all computers the transfer rate to disk was slow that is correctly portrayed in this film when you save the programme to your floppy disk the bar only moved slowly!!! I quite liked Angela's house at the beginning of the film as well Why did no one believe Angela???


This was the first regular filmed Columbo movie episode but yet it aired as the second, after Steven Spielberg's 'Columbo: Murder by the Book'. It's also at the same time among one of the better ones!

Bernard L. Kowalski was one great creative director! No wonder that they later asked him to direct three more Columbo movies. The movie has some real creative and innovative shot sequences and the movie as a whole is also clearly made with style, passion and eye for detail. Every shot connects and is a reason why this movie is better and also better looking just any other average made for TV movie. It's definitely one of the better directed Columbo movies.

It's a quit original Columbo entry for a couple of reasons. The murder is more or less an accident and was an impulsive act. So the killer this time doesn't have any time to plan out the 'perfect murder' in advance and his to clean up any of the traces afterward and has to dispose the body. The killer in this movie is not only being handled as the man who committed the crime but more as the man who helps out Lieutenant Columbo to solve the murder. It makes the character a more interesting and layered one as well and also helps to make the way Columbo solves the whole crime seem way more interesting as well because of that. Of course Columbo starts to suspect him pretty early on and as always he comes to solution by making himself vulnerable and look more stupid than he of course truly is and by gaining the killer's trust. This is obviously no spoiler since this is the way every Columbo movie gets set-up. I liked the story of the movie and how it progressed.

It also helps the movie that it has such a fine cast. At the time of this movie Peter Falk had really made the Columbo character his own and the character at this was already fully developed. Robert Culp is truly great as the short tempered Brimmer. Funny thing is that he would later star in three different Columbo movies again and one 'Mrs. Columbo' episode, only in totally different roles. He even played the murderer in a couple of those movies as well again. He by the way was not the only actor that did this in other later Columbo movies. Also the great Ray Milland makes an appearance in this movie, as the husband of the victim.

All in all, a real great early Columbo movie and among the better ones out of the long running series of movies.

9/10


I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.

Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.

There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom.

The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian 'roughing it.' These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.

And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.

There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more!

It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.


Having read another review, I thought this movie would actually be good. I do enjoy the 'B' movies, but this couldn't even be classed as such. The photography is probably the only half-way decent thing in the movie. But the editing left much to be desired. It was very choppy and staccato. Whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. The music was awful, specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. If the acting had been better, they could have pulled the movie off. Unfortunately, I've seen better acting in porn flicks. If you want to see a 'B' vampire movie, check out 'Blood Ties'. You'll be much more entertained.


Hollywood movies since the 1930s have treated gays as lepers. In condemning homosexuality, the film industry has reflected only what the repressive society of its day espoused as an ideology. For example, in the 1962 Otto Preminger melodrama 'Advise and Consent,' straight actor Don Murray was cast as a queer congressman who commits suicide rather than confess his alternative lifestyle. Gay movie characters have covered a lot of ground since 'Advise and Consent.' In the 1997 movie 'In & Out,' (**1/2 out of ****), heterosexual actor Kevin Kline is cast as a homosexual teacher who comes out of the closet on his wedding day. While the conservative Hollywood of yesteryear stipulated that the congressional queer in 'Advise and Consent' had to commit suicide, the liberal Hollywood of today dictates that the gay English teacher should be embraced rather than maced.

Basically, 'In & Out' preaches good citizenship in the garb of a politically correct comedy. Director Frank Oz and scenarist Scott Rudnick endorse honesty as the best policy because honesty always ensures happiness. High school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline of 'The Big Chill') will be happy only after he comes out of the closet, just as his once-fat-but-now-thin fiancée Emily (Joan Cusack) will only feel happy when she can ditch her diet. Ultimately, the movie contends that straight society will accept gays when homosexuals can act with greater honesty and candor about themselves. The happily outed gay tabloid reporter played by straight actor Tom Selleck here effectively dramatizes this open-minded commentary.

Rudnick's lightweight script embellishes the true life incident that occurred at the Oscars when Tom Hanks paid tribute to a high school teacher. In 'In & Out,' Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon), a blond, Brad Pitt style bimbo type actor, wins the Oscar for impersonating a fruity foot soldier. Drake honors his mentor Howard Brackett during his acceptance speech. Not contend to stop there, the candid Cameron reveals to a live, television audience that Howard is gay! Suspicion, paranoia, and horror set in as the media descend upon the sleepy town of Green Leaf, Indiana. (When would a no-name high school English teacher's sexual deviance spark such massive media concern?) Among those reporters lurks Peter Malloy (Tom Selleck of 'High Road to China'), and he wants to do a week-long exclusive one on Howard. Howard, however, wants nothing to do with the witch-hunting media, especially the pesky Peter Malloy. Howard denies Drake's gay charges to everybody, including his fiancée and his mom. Malloy lingers because he smells a scoop. The revelation has turned Green Leaf upside down. High school principal Tom Halliwell (Bob Newhart) squirms nervously with all the media coverage. Halliwell warns Howard that were his marriage not imminent, he'd have to give him a pink slip. Meanwhile, Peter bets Howard that his marriage to Emily will fall through at the last moment and he'll be there to record the result on camera.

Howard resorts to audio tapes about macho men. He struggles to reform himself. But Howard's efforts are futile. Guilt swells up inside him. And then there is Peter Malloy, who rags him to come clean about his homosexuality. Finally, at the altar in the sight of God, Howard bursts. Of course, bride-to-be Emily Montgomery is floored by Howard's gay confession. Predictably, the school fires Howard, but he shows up for graduation. Drake shows up, too, and rushes to Brackett's defense. Not only has the school stripped Howard of his job, but they've also given his teacher-of-the-year award to somebody else. Drake appeals to the principal and wins Howard the unanimous support of the community.

The biggest defect in Rudnick's contrived script is Howard himself. Rudnick has created a character too chaste to be true, either by gray or straight standards. Howard Brackett looms as more of a saint than a sinner. He helps one student gain admission to college, and he coaches the track team. How often do you hear of an English teacher doubling as a coach, too? Everybody at his high school adores Howard. He doesn't have a mean bone in his body. Further, Rudnick and Oz ask us to believe that nobody else in Green Leaf is gay. Where are Howard's gay friends? Are they too scared to come to his defense? No, 'In & Out' is not targeted strictly at homosexual audiences. Oz, whose screen credits include cute comedies like 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' and 'House Sitter,' as well as Rudnick teeter on a politically correct tightrope. 'In & Out' is not a gay recruiting movie. The filmmakers show no interest in what prompted either Howard or Peter Malloy to prefer the gay lifestyle. Instead, Oz and Rudnick are only interested in shoring up a thin premise: Is he or isn't he gay? They flesh it out to involve the community response to the answer. Finally, when Howard admits that he is gay, the filmmakers devote the rest of the movies to showing how a conservative, Norman Rockwell-like town can accept him despite his difference.

The most shocking scenes in 'In & Out' is probably when tabloid reporter Malloy does a lip lock on Howard. Straight guys kissing each other in a movie about a gay identity crisis are as hilarious as they are phony. Kline and Selleck grind their faces together in what appears as more of a head-on collision than a closed-mouth kiss. Nothing at all like the controversial 1994 British movie 'Priest,' 'In & Out' emerges as an engaging but labored piece of social propaganda with its okay-to-be-act message. If 'Ellen' weren't the TV equivalent, 'In & Out' would probably be heading toward TV as a new sitcom. Watching 'In & Out' is not so much about dealing with the issue of gay or straight, but how to be a decent person in the last days of the 20th century. What makes 'In & Out' a tolerable comedy about sexual intolerance is its equal opportunity cheers and jeers about queers and steers.


I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly.


An interesting concept vampirism having something to do with a virus.(but done several times by now) Overall the movie is too long and drags a bit. The editing could have been tighter. I am sorry to hear about the problem with the credits. Maybe the movie was rushed to market. The lighting was too dark in places. But the worst technical problem is the audio. The level was good enough to hear the dialog, but many of the interiors have a echo sound to them, which is very distracting. Either they were not careful in the recording, or the sound mixing could have been better. Also too much background noise got through. The should have gotten someone to do sound effects for the martial arts scenes. The tinny clank of swords hitting together was not the sound of an epic battle. Especially in the combat scenes the editing needed to be tighter.

Also the acting was a bit flat. I am sorry, but when I see that the same person writes and stars in a movie, in my experience it is a red flag.

But it was a good effort so I gave it a 4.


Anupam Kher is an excellent actor, he debuted at 28 playing a 50 yr old in SARAANSH

Now he turns director with OJJ

The film has a good plot but it's regressive

The theme has been done to death and Urmila's character looks too put on while Anil-Mahima and Abhi- Tara tracks are too sudden and then forgotten

The film moves a snail pace and begins to drag but there are several good scenes like the entire conflict between Anil-Fardeen and Abhishek where Fardeen says to sell the house

Abhishek getting caught for a crime and Anil shouting at him

The climax is too much though

Directorally Anupam shows potential, but has some way to go Music is okay

Anil Kapoor excels in his part like always Fardeen tries hard and is okay but needs to improve Abhishek is excellent, this was a turning pt, people realized he can act Urmila is okay Mahima and Tara are wasted Waheeda is good


About the spoiler warning? It's not 'may contain', it -does- contain spoilers. Readers beware.

Okay, first I need it to be known that I'm not bashing the actors. They're just working with what they're given. The problem was the script. It was horrendous. There was NOTHING believable about it at all. Sure, when you have a movie based on a murderous hitchhiker, there's going to be the bad mistake here and there that puts you in the terribly horrific, movie-worthy situation. But these girls just made stupid decision after stupid decision. The only girl smart enough to ever try and call the police was the girl added towards the end because he'd already killed one and hit another with a car. Speaking of hitting her with a car...why the hell did she try and outrun a truck rather than run to the side like a normal person? Also, does the one who wrote the script honest to god believe cops are not going to investigate a door covered in blood? Frankly, it wasn't suspenseful either. The only suspense I was feeling was the frustration at just how retarded the girls were. Well, this rant has gone on way longer than I meant to for such a bad movie, so I won't bother to touch on the end besides the fact it's unrealistic and lame.


I picked this movie up because it sounded like a pretty decent flick, and I've always been a fan of Foreign films. However, for someone who likes movies, I was surprised at how much I hate, hate, HATED this movie.

Although it does aim to expose the lives of young, lowerclass men in Lima, and to an extent it does succeeed, the characters are hopelessly shallow and the audience winds up having absolutely no feelings whatsoever for them.

Although the story chiefly revolves around M, he rarely ever speaks, and his dialouge is, at best, amazingly dry and dull.

*** Warning: Some small spoilers ***

Basically, the story revolves around a young man named M who has been searching for jobs, but without success (He does gain employment twice, but quits because they're 'not for him', when you're poor, the last option you have is to be picky). Some amount of time is spent with his friends, who's idea of 'fun' is to rape a little 14 year old, steal crappy tires off a piece of shit car for a dime sack of weed, and several other slightly retarded activities.

M's friend comesup with a plan to make $25,000 a piece and move to the US by running Cocaine to Miami. When the drug lord gives them a job, we're treated to an extremely lame scene of the three friends buying clothes at the mall with some music playing in the background. We see them trying different clothes on like little girls given $200 to shop, get there hair cut, and then strutting off looking like slick gangsters (one character, Carlos, will from this point on wear sunglasses ALWAYS... even at night).The day before they leave, the leader of the group leaves to speak with the drug lord, leaving M and his friend to be dumb. They party up, take several samples of the drugs they're suppose to run, and break into thier old school, acting like animals and smashing everything in sight.

The movie ends when M tries calling his girlfriend, who hangs up on him. The friends then proceed to set the pay phone on fire, which brings out a bunch of kids and some old man with gun. M and Carlos' friend in charge of the drug run shows up on his motorcycle and wants them to leave with him now. Then he takes off by himself, and gets shot by that old man. The police show up and arrest M and his friends (but not the man who shot the guy) and cover thier dead friend up with newspapers as music plays and it fades to credits.

**** End Spoiler ****

I even watched this movie a second time, hoping to see some subtle, redeeming factor for it, but I did not. A complete waste of 102 minutes. Although I must give it credit for being straightforward and not shying away from disturbing elements, the casting, acting, and overall direction still leaves much, much, much to be desired.

IMHO, if you're interested in a movie that explores the issues this one was suppose to, go rent City of God (Cidade de Deus) instead. Avoid this trash at all costs! You have been warned!!


Another movie that makes the story of The Beach Boys worse than it is. I especially remember the scene when Brian says he's to quit touring and the other Boys calls him traitor. I didn't happen like that, and like the movie indicates in the beginning is that some scenes are over-reacted. A movie about The Beach Boys doesn't have to be that way because a lot of things happened anyway. The sad thing is that this movie gives the wrong picture about the boys to those who ain't so familiar with the group. Hard-core fans like myself knew that this isn't the entire true story and that's why i gave it a low rating 3. However it is the best movie about The Beach Boys I've seen so far, that says quite a bit about the other movies. If you want the truth I recommend the documentary Endless Harmony.


'Spin it!'

The 90s opened up with a clever Disney favorite, 'TaleSpin,' the TV cartoon series that featured characters from 'The Jungle Book.' Join Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker as they fly the Sea Duck like you've never seen it before: out of Cape Suzette, to Louie's, up mountains, through jungles, on water, in volcanoes, looking for adventure, looking for treasure, looking for fun, all in one action-packed cartoon adventure!!!!!

This was a favorite of mine as well as my family's. This ran on The Disney Afternoon the entire first half of the 90s until the original cartoons moved to the Old Disney Channel in 1995, which I have seen on vacation once in 1996 before getting cable in March 1997.

And good news: today the DVDs are here!!!!! Relive the fun and excitement of 'Dun, dun, dun, TaleSpin!!!!!'

10/10


Now here is a movie that does something that hasn't been done in a long time. It take ten or so different elements that we're already familiar with (Vampires, martial arts, a techno beat, top-o-the-line special effects, etc.), and turns it into something that feels brand new. In what could have easily been merely a combination of 'Mortal Kombat' and 'Buffy: The Vampire Slayer,' Wesley Snipes (no favorite of mine since and mostly because of 'Passenger 57') gives a really good turn as the half human/ half bloodsucker. He acknowledges the internal conflict, but doesn't dwell on it more than necessary. He makes Blade as deep a character as Michael Keaton made Batman.

I'll say that the only part of the movie that got me a little miffed was the always present horror movie cliche of that one person that the hero happens to know who happens to know exactly how to stop the evil guy. On the other hand, you sort of have to have that in a movie like this, so it's easily excusable.

Well, Snipes is good. And Steven Dorff, hyped in the previews, makes a more than bad enough bad guy to Snipes' hero. He's got class, presence, and enough control in his little pinky to teach Al Pacino how to tone it down a bit. Who would ever think that a comic book movie would be a launching pad for an actor? I sincerely hope this is. And whoa! where the heck did Kris Kristofferson get acting talent? Don't get me wrong, but the prolific actor hasn't done anything memorable since 'Millennium,' and how many of us watched that just 'cause of the cool video box? Well, here he is, folks, in a very Obi-wanish turn, as Blade's mentor and father figure. And good job, too.

The quality of the acting is matched by the quality of the choreography and special effects. Accompanied by a pulsing techno beat, the fight scenes brings back and quickly banish memories of Mortal Kombat. Hey! It had a script, too! I was wondering what had happened to all the good writers out there.

The two major indications to me that I saw a quality flick were these; I had no feeling of remorse about paying full price to get in, a la any Schumacher 'Batman,' 'The Avengers,' 'MK: Annihilation,' 'Godzilla,' or 'Armageddon.' (wow, how many of those came out this year? Ugh) Also, I look forward to the inevitable sequel, as per the film's ending. Let's just hope they do as good a job with it as with the first one.


This is the touching story of two families in Israel and the relationships within each family. Each family has a gay son. The stories are interrelated at that point but this film is about all of the family members, not just the two sons. The portraits of each of the family members in both families are well drawn and the story is consistently interesting if a bit bleak.


We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.

One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called 'The House of the Spirits.' Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the 'big house on the corner,' a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.

If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.


Toy Soldiers is an okay action movie but what really stands out is the amount of effort that the scriptwriters and director put into portraying American counter-terrorist forces accurately. Just check out the end credits--there are more than a dozen US military officers and officials listed. The movie accurately portrays the FBI as having control of the hostage situation but turning it over the US Army's Delta Force (who are unnamed in the movie as the Pentagon was still denying their existence at this time) once the President waived the Posse Commitatus Act of US Code. The US Army forces at the end are accurately dressed and armed for the time. And even the use of an AH-64 Apache for air support--which might seem a bit over the top, is not terribly unrealistic. Far more expensive and frankly better movies have portrayed American counter-terrorist forces with far less accuracy.


I saw this in a preview screening and have to say that this documentary style movie is the biggest load of tripe I have ever seen.

Completely unfunny, low budget, boring, rubbish script, terrible acting - The entire audience (young and old) sat through the film comatose without laughing for most of it... there were literally only about 2 places you will laugh in the entire movie

Many people left halfway - Can't blame them... I stayed thinking that the film would pick up, however, it never did and I wish I'd left.

The humour was really lame and I am surprised that this ever made it on to the big screen. I am not someone who is offended by the adult content of this movie at all - It just wasn't funny. The people who made this movie really don't deserve your money, so please don't pay to see this film.

This isn't even funny enough to be shown on TV, let alone cinema...

I wanted to give it 0 out of 10, but the system won't allow it...


Mardi Gras: Made in china is an excellent movie that depicts how two cultures have much in common but, are not even aware of the influence each society has on one another. David Redmon open your eyes and allows you to see how the workers in china manufactures beads that cost little to nothing and are sold in America for up to 20 dollars. When Redmon questions Americans about where these beads come from they had no clue and seemed dumb founded. When he told them that they are made in China for less then nothing with horrible pay and unacceptable working conditions, Americans seemed sad, hurt, and a little remorseful but didn't really seem that they would stop purchasing the beads after finding out the truth. When Redmon questioned the workers in china they did not know that Americans were wearing them over their necks and paid so much for these beads. The workers laughed at what the purpose was behind beads and couldn't believe it. This movie is a great film that gives us something to think about in other countries besides our own.

M. Pitts


I have yet to read Shirley Jackson's novel, something of which I've been meaning to do for quite sometime. I am sure it has got to be scarier than this film. I remember jumping once when I watched it the other day, although I cannot recall the scene.

The special effects are great and I watched this on DVD, but I am sure in the theatre it must have been an awesome sight. After the first few special effects are done with I was waiting for a story to develop.

I figured this movie at the least has to be loosely based on the classic novel, so a good story should be there, but it wasn't. I was relegated to staring at the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones character throughout the movie basically because there was nothing much else to watch. Lili Talor was such a suck character. I did not like her one bit, something about whiny people. Also, the guy in this film reminded me of the cartoonish Dudley DoRight with his voice and face. I could not relate to the characters at all. Quigon, ahem Liam Neeson did an admirable job trying to get through this movie with some type of acting.

Half to three quarters of the way I was just dying to go see a campy Friday the 13th or a Scream Queenish film! At least there is some type of entertainment value. If there is no story there at least they fill it up with gory deaths or attractive females. This had nothing.


The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after 'Blow-Up', meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.

Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.

The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the 'rebel' youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.

Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.

Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some 'benefactor' but 'destroying a genuine piece of American history'. In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.

And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, 'joined' in fantasy by the 'flower' generation reflects the similar sequence in 'Red Desert', where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.

The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.

Antionioni's two 'international' films (the British 'Blow-Up' and the American 'Zabriskie Point') are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge.


As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout!

One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.


Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's 'Joe The Plumber' typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the 'niggers' but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: 'a living, breathing reality!' God help us.


I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.

However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb 'bottom 100' list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.

Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.


Love Trap is not a short, it's quite obviously a full length feature film with a running time of 105 minutes.

While I'm writing this, I might as well talk a bit more about Love Trap. I'm frequently asked what makes Love Trap different... this is how I respond to that question: 1) It introduces characters - one in particular - that have never been seen before in film, period.

2) It reveals more truth about love, and delves more deeply into the very concept of love, than any other U.S. film ever made, in my humble opinion.

3) Structurally, as in the way the story is told, it is unlike any love story you've ever seen.

4) It offers extremely timely insights on various cultural issues, both within and outside the Black community.

Over time, people will come to see Love Trap as about as wholly an original work as possible in this era, delightfully refreshing, authentic and honest. It is a rare morality play full of food for thought.

Please visit www.lovetrapmovie.com for complete and accurate info about this film.


YOU BELONG TO ME (1941) is a example of the 'ScrewBall Comedy' which started in the mid 1930s and ended postwar (WWII). Some of these films maintained their status. Others have earned undeserved praise when originally were critical and box office flops. Like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or MR. & MRS. SMITH (1941). Then there is this one which value just keeps sinking.

Why can be rooted in the screenplay/story. It strains credibility from the get go, betraying a superior cast. BARBARA STANWYCK is married to millionaire HENRY FONDA who is insanely jealous. He would be content to sit back with his million$ and love her, she wishes to maintain her profession as a Doctor. She wants him to become in what her eyes is a useful member of society. This conflict is supposed to amuse us. It cannot be salvaged by either the principals or the supporting cast.

The faults in this scenario can clearly be laid at the feet of DALTON TRUMBO. HENRY FONDAs' character is written in such broad strokes that any viewer has a instant dislike for him. BARBARA STANWYCK just has nothing to do but react to each idiotic situation of jealousy. TRUMBO must have been spending to much time outside the studio being a 'useful idiot' then being on the job. COLUMBIA obviously did not get their moneys worth from him, maybe ROBERT RISKIN should taken over.


Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.

I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.


This two disc set is incredible! If you're like me and never had the opportunity to actually see the band live, then this is the next best thing. Jimmy Page, who in my opinion is the second best guitarist ever to walk the face of the earth (second only to Slowfingers himself), He puts on an amazing show in every piece of footage in this film. John Paul Jones, although not as up front as Page, puts on one hell of a show. Although in the live atmosphere, his rythmic bass lines aren't as defined as they are on studio recordings, except of course in songs like Dazed and Confused, or What is and What Should Never Be), but his wide array of instumental talent is well displayed in these DVD's. John Bonham is John Bonham, what can I say? There is no comparison, his beats stand out like no other, and this DVD is proof. Last, but not least, Robert Plant wails like no other can wail. If you've ever read Hammer of the Gods, you'll be wondering the same thing as Page was when he first met Robert Plant, why the hell isn't this guy already famous? And so concludes my review, sorry about and spelling or grammar mistakes, Zeppelin rocks.


This is a very strange product from Hollywood. Apparently it didn't test well because actors who have footage in the credits have been edited completely out of the movie, which means a hasty cut job was done on it. It feels like it was wrestled out of the usually competent Demme's hands, and just thrown away. On the other and it is so totally lacking in substance that maybe nothing could save it. It has no real center, either narratively or time wise. Although it says the running time is 92 minutes, I seem to recall it ending abruptly, around the 80 minute mark. It's over before it even gets going. It's pretty much laugh free.

The merits of the 'Matthew Modine picture' were as elusive then as the Luke Wilson picture is now.


OhMyGAWD!!! THE MAGIC GARDEN is perhaps one of my most vivid '70s childhood memories. Two hippie chicks with ponytails, Carole and Paula would swing on swings, tell jokes they picked off the chuckle patch, dress up with costumes they found in a giant chest called The Storybox, and argue with a pesky pink squirrel named Sherlock that lived in one of their trees. They also could strum a mean acoustic guitar and sing a pretty melody. This was a great childhood show. Very 70s feeling. But that's the problem: They don't MAKE shows like this anymore. Pity that. You could tell these two girls really had hearts of gold and loved kids, they were really sweet. MAGIC GARDEN is one of those shows that if they came out with a box set people WOULD buy it, because its such a MELLOW walk down Memory Lane.