The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the 'leader' of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice.

The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely 'politically correct' world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very 'watered down' version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect.

In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out.


Anyone who had never seen anything like the fight scenes in The Matrix has never seen this movie. The fight scenes were choreographed by action scene psychopath Yuen Woo Ping, who also did the fights in The Matrix. And the fight scenes are somethin.

Li plays a supersoldier who feels no pain, who now lives a life as a pacifist librarian (ya got me). When other evil supersoldiers begin killing off local drug lords to take over the drug trade, Li teams up with his cop buddy to help stop them.

There are some absolutely crazy things going on in this movie (one badguy gets his arm lopped off with a pane of glass and hardly notices). The fights scenes are filled with flying kicks and punches; the body count is way up there. Li has seldom been better, and he has surrounded himself with a bevy of beautiful female costars (Yip kicks some serious ass as a fellow supersoldier). Anthony Wong even makes a cameo as a drug lord (no suprises there; he makes a cameo in every HK movie). It's unfortunate they don't make action movies like this in the US; I wouldn't have to sit through all of these horrible dubbing jobs to see that action that I crave so much. Recommended.


I read this Thornton Wilder play last year in eighth grade. I was also forced to sit through this weak translation of it on screen. Let me tell you, it's not a terrific play, it is easily surpassed, but man it deserves a much better shot. The acting was really lacking, the scenery-honest to God-looked like it was designed out of cardboard by a group of three-year-olds. As if it couldn't get worse, the sound quality is lousy...there is this mind-numbing 'buzz' whenever an actor speaks...and I also couldn't help but notice that the chemistry between George and Emily, well, is non-existant. The actors all seem very uncomfortable to be there. There is no music. It is in black and white, which would be OK but it brings out the cheesiness of it all the more. In any case I think that if you're going to make a point of seeing this movie, which I don't really reccomend, then don't aim your hopes to high. The play, as stalwart as it is, is probably better.


I originally caught this back in 1996 in its one week run at a movie theatre. I was under impressed by it and my feelings haven't much changed.

Documentary about the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr. covering his life and movies. There are interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. They include: Vampira, Dolores Fuller, Bela Lugosi Jr., Loretta King, Gregory Walcott and Paul Marco. Interviews are mixed with clips from the movies or some bizarre recreations. It is interesting (somewhat) but was this really needed? I've seen all of Wood's films and they're just terrible. Wood had ambitions but not a bit of talent to carry them out. I wouldn't say he was the worst director ever but he's down there. Do we really need a docu on a very mediocre film maker? I do like the fact that they didn't try to make Wood out to be some sort of saint. More than a few of those interviewed (especially Lugosi Jr.) pretty much hated the man and it comes through loud and clear. Also they totally ignore his films in the adult film industry in the 1960s and 70s. Still it's of interest if you're a Wood fan. The best interviews are with Vampira (who tears Wood apart) and Dolores Fuller (a long time girlfriend).


Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term 'appallingly mean', but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie.


Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.

What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. 'Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would' was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and 'pensive looks'. Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.

It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of 'Skyggen', American title: 'Webmaster') decided to do a low-budget version of 'American Psycho' and got kind of distracted along the way.

This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.

Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.

Enough said.


Well I gave this movie a 7. It was better than 'Thirdspace' but not as good as 'In the Beginning' as far as the B5 movies go. I really think the television series did a much better job overall with the special effects and character portrayal. Let's hope the producers and cast get the next series 'Crusade' up to the standards of B5.


Generally speaking, the plot was much better than I was expecting. The laugh track was a bit annoying at times and did tend to get in the way; however, there were enough real chuckles in this episode to make up for it. My biggest surprise was finding some of the best lines and situations were not shown in the trailers. Spade, in particular, was not presented in the best light in the earlier promotions, but his character comes across quite well in the pilot. There is is enough eye-candy to please almost anyone and all the regular characters seem up to the task ahead of them. Now, if the writers can just live up to what they have begun.


Less a thriller than an colorful adventure with suspenseful elements, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH should not be really be compared with such Hitchcock masterpieces as VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, or PSYCHO; it is instead more akin to such enjoyable romps as TO CATCH A THIEF and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Shot largely on location in Morocco and London, the film tells the story of a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) whose holiday is interrupted when they innocently run afoul of an assassination plot--and when their young son is kidnapped in order to insure their silence.

James Stewart and Doris Day are quite effective in their roles of the All-American couple, and the characters are given an unusual twist: Stewart, a midwestern doctor, is outgoing but has a touch of 'the ugly American abroad' about his personality; Day, who plays a popular stage and recording star who retired upon her marriage, has a suspicious nature. These qualities of personality and background play extremely well into the story.

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH contains a number of famous scenes; both the scene in which Stewart drugs Day before telling her of the kidnapping and the very complex Albert Hall sequence, involving what seems hundreds of cuts, are very powerful. Less often noticed, although to my mind equally if not more satisfactory, are the more subtle scenes in which Hitchcock combines an edge of suspense along with perverse humor, as when Stewart attempts some detecting at a taxidermist shop and Day belts out 'Que Sera, Sera' (written for this film) in a most unsuitable way at an embassy cocktail party.

Although THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH lacks the depth and impact of Hitchcock's greater work, it remains an enjoyable film and one that compares very well with his work as a whole. It's Hitchcock-light, but recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


This is an engrossing woman's drama that men can enjoy. The plot follows a young woman (Hope Lange) who goes to work for a publisher after college. We can forgive her jump in position from secretary to editor (hey, it's Hollywood) and a few other flaws. Here is one of the few films in which once big time producer Robert Evans (here, beautifully depicting a rat with women) appears. It also features a mature Joan Crawford and terrific supporting cast. Check it out.


What if someone made a horror movie that was completely devoid of plot?

Well, I think it would probably end up a little bit like this one. I don't think I've ever seen a move was so steady it its slide from hackneyed (at the beginning) to complete crap (by the end). I only stuck with it, because I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get worse. Well, up until the very end, 'Necrophagus'/'Graveyard of Horror' proved me wrong.

Who would have suspected that a movie with an undead lizard-man, evil grave-robbing cultists, and mad scientists tossed in for no discernible reason could suck this bad? One would think there'd at least be some humor value... but not here.


Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.

It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).

This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.


Okay, so the previews to this film only tells you that a rebellious young girl goes to live with her grandmother for the summer in order to straighten out. That is actually not the case! It's about a young rebellious 17 year old girl who reveals a secret and it's up to her mother to believe if she's telling the truth or not.

To be honest, I really enjoyed the concept of this movie. They had a really good plot and a really good theme of a love/hate relationship between mother and daughter. I did not however, enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan's acting. In reality, this movie would have been GREAT if they had someone else, perhaps a better actress. The character of Rachel (Lohan) is a very sexually aggressive person and it sort of reminds us of the real Lindsay so it takes away a lot from the film.

I do however, think that if you put Lindsay aside, you will enjoy this film. The ending is pretty great (and sad).


Request you to not watch this movie... It starts with a promise and as it goes on you crave for the movie to end... Predictable,not entertaining at all,wasted movie... Save your time and watch better thrillers.... The synopsis sounds good and that is why I watched the movie... But it was way too predictable with nothing to give you a start... No great suspense.. no great direction... nothing phenomenal with the acting... shy away from this... low rating... Nothing to write about this movie so I am filling up the remaining lines of text so you can imagine how much a time waster this movie is...really irritated at how good a premise that was and how bad a screenplay was written out of it...


This movie should not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as 'The Dish'

The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.

Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time.


I absolutely loved this movie. I am not even sure what particularly about it but I think it was wonderful and should be available for DVD. The women were strangers and yet got along well enough to spend the time they did in the Villa in Italy. The actors, in my opinion, did an excellent job. The characters were all so different and yet clever story that made it work. There is humor, drama and relationship issues all in good time. This requires 10 lines but I just can't think of any more to say so I will just rattle on until I get 10 lines. So sorry about this. What else can I possibly say it has been a long time since I last saw it. I am looking forward to view again but it isn't available.


I've seen this movie at least fifty times and after watching it last week for the first time in a long time I still FELT it.

The story itself was incredible but came alive by Spielberg's expertise and the fabulous cast including Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, and Margaret Avery. Akosua Busia deserved an Oscar nomination for her short but powerful portrayal of Nettie.

You'll experience every human emotion while watching this film. I laughed, cried, and got angry. Like most great movies it was looked over by the Academy with a host of nominations but no wins. But this movie, without a doubt, is definitely one of the best films of all time.


Not sure if I'm referring to those who labeled this a video nasty or to the director...'Devil Hunter' sure is one bizarre 'horror' movie.

The plot is a loosey goosey combo of superior films like 'Cannibal Ferox' and 'Cut and Run.' Chick gets kidnapped in the 'jungle' by a 'tribe' of 'savages.' The jungle looks more like a park somewhere in Mexico. The tribe is like a group of hippies who walk around in Party City-style Halloween costume renditions of tribal garb. And the savages range in race from white to Asian to black to hispanic. I suppose Franco just grabbed anyone who looked even slightly ethnic for this romp.

To make matters worse, this film has ultra-minimal gore, no real scares and a lot of unnecessary penis. Not fun. I can find something to like in just about any sleazy Italian or Euro-trash film; this one just fell WAY short.

2 out of 10, kids.


The producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.

Avoid this one at all costs.


... I am left with little choice but to employ it at least once during the course of my review of Respiro. Among other things, what defines pretension is in my opinion a lack of emotional sincerity on the author's part. Respiro seems made with an all too contrived and self-aware intent to be artistic, symbolic, spiritual, provocative, metaphorical... mythical, even. But luckily for all true artists out there, a predisposed formula to achieve artistic beauty and depth doesn't exist. Stunning natural locations (yes, these remote parts of Southern Italy look exotic even to most other Italians), pretty actors and some amusing, gutsy, spontaneous performances by a handful of attractive children won't elevate a substanceless movie beyond a pretty succession of images. Yet this insincere and vain, and ultimately hollow movie aches to be art, succeeding only to a very limited extent, perhaps in some cases by accident. I'll admit that the conceptually pompous ending does have a certain visual poetry to it. However, it's my belief that this was achieved in ways that had more to do with the beauty of the Lampedusa sea and the strong symbolic power of bathing and water (connecting it to so much that's mythical, mystical, religious, archetypical, etc) than with Crialese's talent.

Valeria Golino is gratingly histrionic and affected in her performance as Grazia. For a mentally unstable woman from a humble and provincial background, she sure has a fashionable wardrobe. Her flattering, floaty floral dresses and attractive, sun-kissed beach hair could have graced the pages of any Vogue summer edition. The fact she was a 'nutcase' could in a way have been nothing but a fashionable addition to her trendy demeanour and look - that's how skin-deep her 'condition' seemed to me. Golino's two-dimensional stereotype of the innocent, natural child-woman misunderstood and oppressed by her backward community was tiresome and irritating at worse, while leaving me unmoved and indifferent at best. I agree with the reviewer from London who wrote that mental illness is very badly served by cinema - during the course of the entire movie we never really get a sense of Grazia's illness and have no idea what is actually wrong with her (other than her being a tiresome stereotype of a 'free spirit'). We don't know why she's given injections and is required to see a specialist in Milan. This generic way of writing mental illness is one of the main tell-tale signs of the movie's overall shallowness.

Another fairly insulting aspect of Respiro is the quaintification of its location. I struggled to figure out whether this movie was supposed to be set in the present day or the past, seeing as it aimed to make even an admittedly backward part of Italy (by comparison) seem a dozen times quainter and more conveniently primitive than it actually is. Again, this smacks of shallowness and a complete lack of sincerity on Crialese's part. Some non-Italian viewers will gleefully lap up the picturesque backwardness, the cliché of the possessive, macho Italian man as if it were common-place, so keen will they be to continue viewing my country as one culturally stranded sometime in the 1950s (the question I'd like to ask David Ferguson, the reviewer from Dallas, Texas is as follows: is YOUR country's mentality stuck in the 1950s? No? OK, then why should mine be?). Unfortunately for whoever still wishes to view Italy in such an anachronistic way, that aspect of Respiro is actually ridiculous and phoney even in the eyes of THIS Italian viewer. The subtly incestuous tension between Grazia and her eldest son was as tiresome and predictable as Fabrizio Bentivoglio's sexist-but-loving-husband routine. I especially loathed the scene in which Grazia joins her husband and male friend in some man-to-man banter over a bottle of beer, to her husband's macho embarrassment and displeasure. According to this movie, it isn't a woman's place to take part in a man's conversations. Ah, but our 'loveable' 'free-spirit' is too good for this place and doesn't understand the oppressive, unwritten rules of Lampedusan patriarchy! Not only does this scene depict something so fake, it should be enough on its own to discredit the entire movie's credibility. It also completely gets the wrong end of the stick of the culture it strives to depict, clearly showing that it was written without a clear understanding of the location or its population. I would challenge anyone who knows contemporary Italy to say otherwise.

For a truly accomplished contemporary Italian filmmaker, one who in my opinion deserves to be listed among the greats of Italy's glorious cinematic past (which alas, isn't the shadow of its former self!), look no further than Gianni Amelio - especially Lamerica, Così Ridevano and his latest, La Stella Che Non C'è. Unlike most contemporary Italian cinema, sadly derivative and stagnant, Amelio's is a fresh and independently creative voice. Despite my scathing review of Respiro, I am now more than willing to believe that Crialese's latest Nuovomondo, now showing in Italian cinemas, will be a worthwhile one. I therefore look forwards to enjoying it, though it won't be overly shocking to me if I don't (considering my feelings for Respiro!).


I supposed 'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is a dull slasher flick. Yes, it have some good point, but it's a rehash from another flick. The acts is so awful nor the plot.

The story goes from a legend about a living scarecrow on the cornfield. When an initiation become a prank and cause the life a boy in jeopardy, the scarecrow comes alive and start a killing frenzy. Sound familiar, right? It's derived from Scream, Friday the13th, Jeepeer Creepers, Children of the Corn, you name it!

'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is so below average film. Barely have a scary moment. Even the final scene is laughable! Sadly, we still could enjoy it as our time killer. But I prefer you to watch something else instead. Unless you're a big fan bad and cheesy movies, off course.

4/10


Richard Abernethie, a very wealthy man, has died and his relatives have assembled for his funeral. Included in the funeral party is Abernathie's youngest sister Cora Galaccio. While none of the family has seen Cora in at least 20 years, they all agree that Cora was always a bit different. So when Cora says something about Abemethie having been murdered, most laugh it off as one of Cora's eccentricities. But someone is obviously taking Cora seriously. The next day, Cora is found dead in her bed having been beaten violently. Is there a connection between the two deaths? It's up to Hercule Poirot to find a killer.

After the Funeral is one of the most well put together episodes of the entire Poirot series. I've always been a fan of this particular Agatha Christie book and, from what I remember, the movie is as faithful to Christie's source material as any of the Poirot installments. The mystery is top notch with plenty of clues, suspects, and red herrings. And as I've written before, I always enjoy an Christie story where Hercule Poirot gathers everyone together in a drawing room for the final reveal. It might be old fashioned, but that's the way I like it. Getting beyond the plot, technically and artistically After the Funeral is a winner. Sets, editing, direction, and cinematography are as good as you'll find in one of these movies. The acting is equally impressive. I've come to expect an enjoyable performance from David Suchet as Poirot and he doesn't disappoint here. The rest of the cast is just as strong with Monica Dolan giving an especially noteworthy performance. Other than a minor quibble with the rapid fire way the characters are introduced, I've got no real complaints. It's a good show all the way around.


30 years after the original film, 'Goodbye, Mr. Chips' was made over as a musical. Peter O'Toole and Petula Clarke starred in this wonderful remake of the beloved schoolteacher, Chippington, who is referred to as Chips by his beloved wife.

O'Toole was excellent here and received another Oscar nomination. You have to wonder what Peter O'Toole has to do to win an Oscar. He has lost the coveted award 8 times now. You also have to wonder that he lost in 1969 to John Wayne for 'True Grit,' which was really a testament to Mr. Wayne's long career and popularity. This year was also marked by great performances by Richard Burton, 'Anne of the Thousand Days,' as well as Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight for 'Midnight Cowboy.'

Surprised to see Petula Clarke cast as Mrs. Chippington. However, as this was a musical, a beautiful voice came well through and she did a nice piece of acting as well.

Who can forget the scene when Chips carries on in the class despite the news that his beloved has been killed in a bombing. He never got to tell her the wonderful news of his pending promotion.

The beautiful cinematography and music only enhanced a truly memorable experience.


Crackerjack is a hit and miss film set in the Australian suburban lawn bowls club of Cityside. Mick Molloy plays a scammer who has been scoring free parking spaces at Cityside. When the club is put under pressure to install poker machines in it's premises they need to raise $8000 to keep this from happening. The club needs new members to help and this is where Mick molloys character comes in and has to bowl to save the club. With many up and coming and aging Australian actors Crackerjack is a hidden gem. Be warned though most of the jokes are for those with a knowledge of lawn bowls but there are many amusing sight gags that provide comical relief. Sam Johnson and Judith Lucy co-star. Overall the movie should be recommended for people who play lawn bowls or have played but there is enough other material in there for an amusing play if you have a slight understanding. If you enjoy Australian humour I suggest you get you're bowling whites on and head on out to the theatre because this is the premiere lawn bowls comedy of the year(also the only one).


Laughable.

Clichéd.

Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.

Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show  a cartoon from the mid-90s  featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.

I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.

To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next  should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.

The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.

3/10


I saw this film about twenty years ago on the late show. I still vividly remember the film, especially the performance of Robert Taylor. I always thought Taylor was underrated as an actor as most critics saw him as solid, almost dull leading man type, and women simply loved to watch his films because of his looks. This film, however, proved what an interesting actor he could be. He did not get enough roles like this during his long career. This is his best performance. He is totally believable in a truly villainous role. From what I have read, he was a very hardworking and easy going guy in real life and never fought enough for these kind of roles. He basically would just do what MGM gave him. This film proves that he could have handled more diverse and difficult roles. The other thing I remember about this film is how annoying Lloyd Nolan's character was. Nolan was a great actor, but this character really aggravated me. The last scene of the film has stuck with me for all of these years. This film is definitely worth a look.


I read a viciously hidden remarks on a previous comments stating that this film showed a bunch of gay guys romping around their gayness.

This couldn't be more misleading. 'Eighteen' is not a gay film. It has only three gay characters in it and one of them is the victim of prejudice of people like the one who wrote the comments, despite his confession of fairness.

Pip's grandfather was not gay. The tender scene of the soldier and his sergeant is male bonding at the crucial moment of death. But some people gets appalled by a kiss and welcome scene of guts flying out of a man killed by a bomb.

The focus of the film is the straight relationship of Pip and that sweet girl and their facing their social obligation and parenthood.

Ralph Rewes www.r1313.info


Let's face it, a truly awful movie, no...I mean a 'truly' awful movie, is a rare, strange, and beautiful thing to behold. I admite that there is a special place in my heart for films like Plan 9 From Outer Space, Half Caste, Species, etc. And although I'm giving this film a 1, I highly urge anyone who enjoys a bad film for what it truly is (a bad film) to find a friend, snacks, something to drink, and make the special occasion it deserves out of: Aussie Park Boyz.

From the very first moments of the lead actor's side to side eye-rolling performance as he attempts to inject intensity directly into the film without ever looking at a camera (a slice of ham straight out of silent pictures--eat your heart out Rudolph Valentino) to the sudden hey-we're-out-of-film conclusion, you...will...not...stop...laughing.

To sum the film up, its a poor man's Warriors down under, complete--and that description alone should be enough, but then comes the wonders of 'the spaghetti eating scene', 'the 'We've got their tickets; they won't be leaving town now' scene', 'It's the Asians! Run!!' and more. The only truly objectionable part is a gratuitously filmed rape. Outside of this, I dare you to watch this film. And I dare you to find evidence of acting, or lines, or direction, or any of those other boring and superfluous elements that so-called critics say a film needs to be judged as good.

If this movie doesn't cause fits of uncontrollable laughter before it ends, all I can do is roll my eyes menacingly from side to side at you and shout, 'You dog! You dog! You dog!'


I've seen a slew of '80s rocker horrors' over the years, from rubbish like 'Terror on Tour' to ridiculously fun gems like 'Slumber Party Massacre 2.' Somehow I managed to keep putting this one off, which is strange because it's probably the most popular and well received one. Well, I finally caught up with it and it's easily the best of this mostly awful (but almost always endearing!) subgenre. The plot (which was pretty much lifted in the film 'Black Roses') concerns a mulleted misfit named Eddie, whose ridiculed by all in his high school for his taste in music. He loves 80s metal, especially his idol Sammi Curr (played by the late great Tony Fields.) After Sammi is killed, Eddie favorite radio DJ gives him Sammi's final recording. Once Eddie plays the record backwards, he discovers he's a bit tougher, and bad things start happening to those who taunt him. Is Sammi's music possessed? 'Trick or Treat' is well-made and a total hoot. The special effects are awesome, even though it does feature the typical 80s laser beams. I grew up in the 80s, and while I wasn't a fan of heavy metal, I do remember the urban legend about playing a record backwards hearing the sounds of Satan worshipping. Haha! I also remember being told by my older siblings and neighbors that both KISS and Ozzy worshipped Satan, so it's very amusing to see them both make cameos as a harmless radio DJ and a anti-rock priest. If only I had seen this film as a kid! While the film seems to poke fun at the popular connection in the 80s between alleged devil worship and heavy metal, the viewer never really finds out why Sammi Curr is back from the dead creating havoc and killing whoever gets in his way. This is movie's weakest point, but if you can overlook that, it's loads of fun.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?

Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.

Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.

Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence

I don't think so

I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)


This stylistically sophisticated visual game presents a story within a story'. The protagonist is scriptwriter Bart Klever who fights persistently with his new text  which is, at the same time, the screenplay of the film we're watching. In the movie Bart plays a scriptwriter writing the script of the film Bart's struggle with the text becomes a narrative theme, as does the environment of the flat where he works and takes care of his little girl. The intimate environment offers ample opportunity for games of illusion involving space, light, colours and a couple of cats. The outwardly simple world of the room is further complicated by the unstable dimensions of a text continually influenced by the filmmaker's interventions, which appears on a computer monitor and serves as a counterpoint to the similarity mutable environment. The constantly changing viewing angle complicates answers to questions which arise: What is truth' and what illusion' ? Which of the observed worlds is primary and superior to the rest? Can anything serve as a basic orientation point in the narrative space?


Keep away from this one. The worst thing is the appalling story. There seems to be an intent to convey some subtle spiritual/love/friendship message but it is so pathetically devoid of any substance you can't help but cringe. In addition, the majority of screen time is a far below standard story of thieves, criminals and our hero(es) dealing with some alien time travel artifacts. I know you are asking for trouble when dealing with time but the story is more full of holes than usual. Also you have: cheap sets, bad acting and some of the worst music arrangements in the history of the moving picture, overpowering, cheap, abrupt and disjointed. All I can say is 'Man alive ! This film is bad !'


The little girl Desi is so adorable... I cant think of a more beautiful story then this one here. It will make you cry, laugh, and believe. Knowing that this was based on a true story just made me gasp and it also made me realize that there are nice people out there. Great cast and an overall great movie.


POSSIBLE SPOILERS --

I love Dennis Quaid and I like Meg Ryan. I was looking forward to seeing them together, being married and all, I wanted to see their on-screen chemistry. Okay, that being said, I guess the fact that they are actors, their off-screen relationship didn't have to permeate their performances, especially with this script.

How stupid can a professor be to glue himself to anyone. I don't remember the original, but I can only assume that O'Brien probably was handcuffed to his leading lady, probably in a more inevitable way. If I were 'bonded' to someone I'd be pretty angry. The crush I would have would definitely have dissipated quickly. Meg showed not even a little annoyance only slight surprise. Dennis would have to take me kicking and screaming. That whole section of the movie was so horrible -- especially Meg having to go to the bathroom (#2) between dumpsters in the dark at night. Ewww. No f****ing way!

What's with Dennis socking every single suspect in the movie. Sock first ask questions later. Not once, not twice but too many times -- I could have kept count if I were so inclined.

The most interesting part of the movie was Nick and his family drama. Too bad that couldn't have become more of the plot. The assumed off-screen drama leading up to this tragedy. I think it could have been written in without distracting from Dex' quest.

My blame lies with the writer of this screenplay. Unless the director and others doctored it up so much that it's unrecognizable.

I won't even get into the real reason poor Dex was murdered. How ludicrous is that. Even when Dex confronted the real killer and the reason was explained, (a true 'film noir' moment) everyone on screen seemed bored. Oh, _____ happened. Oh. (yawn) 'Dex even says this is a silly reason for a triple murder. Oh the tension, you could cut it with a spoon.

If anyone but Dennis had been in this movie, I'd have to give it 1/2 star (only because I really have seen worse), but in this case 1 1/2 stars.

For Dennis and Meg stars, see ANYTHING ELSE.


Currently playing at the 2007 German Film Festival in Australia http://www.goethe.de/ins/au/lp/prj/ff07/enindex.htm thanks to Peanutqueen and especially AriesGemini for her rundown on the actors in this ensemble cast.

In Australia these movies were sub-titled in English and while French movies here often get a mainstream release, German movies are still to gather that sort of commercial audience. But like BMWs and Mercedes when Germans get it right I really like their films. Like PQ the time here went so quickly, lots of laughs from the audience as each of the 9 men and 9 women moved down the speed dating line 5 minutes at a time.

While many films are overlong this one I could have watched much more of. It had the sort of characters and character development for a series. Given time I will re-read AriesGemini100 review and reference the actors I liked and their other work with a view to keeping an eye out from them. I agree....most of these actors will go onto bigger and better things. Some very good character actors in this fine film. I did see it in the program listed as a mockumentary. Mock or otherwise it felt very real. And quite romantic in it's way.

Viva la Deutcsh!


So many consider The Black Cat as the best Karloff/Lugosi collaboration. I disagree. The Invisible Ray is their best. A great storyline, fantastic special effects, and classic Karloff over-acting. I love it!!


For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's 'The Thing' is one of very few films to fit this criterion.

I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based ('Who Goes There') before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change 'always a mistake' to 'usually a mistake'! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...

Until seeing 'The Thing', I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing 'The Thing', I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.

If you haven't seen 'The Thing', and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced!


I'm embarrassed to be writing this review. I say that because those of you reading it will know that I sat through the whole thing and that is embarrassing to admit even to strangers. But I just had to warn those who read the viewer comments on IMDb before they watch a film not to watch this one. It's the least I can do. This is a bad movie! Trust me. The plot is goofy. The acting is amateurish. And the directing, camera work, sets, costumes, etc. are all second rate. Let it go.


I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like.

One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate.

There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.


This is what porn used to be, this is a true classic. I mean, it is an x-rated musical based on an actual book! There is a real plot to it and how many x-rated movies can boast that these days? This belongs in an exclusive short-list of true pornographic movie classics, including Debby Does Dallas, Deep Throat, and Behind the Green Door. I think the problem with 'pornographic movies' these days is that it's all about the 'pornographic' and not about the 'movie'. Alice in Wonderland has graphic depictions of sex, sure, but it is actually telling a story at the same time. Not one of the typical 'Oh, Mr. Police Man, don't write me a ticket' plots, this takes it another step further and makes it a musical! Fabulous! If you want to see an example of 'good' porn, this is one of the best.


Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend!

Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long 'missionary trip' to Africa.

Hilarious fun.


This early Warner Brothers talkie 'Son of the Gods' (1930) deals with the racial intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but contempt.

Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess of 'Only Angels Have Wings'), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E. Alyn Warren of 'Gone With The Wind'), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London, England, peeling potatoes while he is on board.

During the trip, he encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of 'Arrowsmith'), who needs some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of 'Two-Faced Woman'), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop in front of a room filled with on-lookers.

Of course, Sam is terribly devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of 'Iron Man') sends Sam a telegram about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana, Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and they marry and live happily ever after.

This socially conscientious Warner Brothers/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it, they wind up in each other's arms.

The capitulation on the race issue with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power. Incredibly, 'Son of the Gods' is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced performance. Despite its age, 'Son of the Gods' is a son of a good movie!


I highly recommend this film. Set in the Bladerunner-esquire future of 2054 Paris, it is in most respect a classic film noir script: lady in peril, sister trying to find her, honest cop fighting everyone. Luckily, it avoids being stereotypical, and combines a pretty good storyline with interesting, innovative visuals. The film might remind you of Sin City in look, but it has an even sharper, even more graphic novel look that I found really compelling. Each frame, each sequence seems like it could have been pulled from the desk of a skilled graphic designer. In terms of story and artwork, you can find nods going back to the nineteen forties (or even earlier with the classic views of the Eiffel Tower and Sacre Couer) and movies like Casablanca, as well as looking toward a grim future where our destines are ruled by corporations. Make any excuse you need to see this film.


In 1454, in France, the sorcerer Alaric de Marnac (Paul Naschy) is decapitated and his mistress Mabille De Lancré (Helga Liné) is tortured to death accused of witchcraft, vampirism and lycanthropy. Before they die, they curse the next generations of their executioners. In the present days (in the 70's), Hugo de Marnac (Paul Naschy) and Sylvia (Betsabé Ruiz) and their friends Maurice Roland (Vic Winner) and his beloved Paula (Cristina Suriani) go to a séance session, where they evoke the spirit of Alaric de Marnac. They decide to travel to the Villas de Sade, a real estate of Hugo's family in the countryside, to seek a monastery with a hidden treasure. They find Alaric's head and the fiend possesses them, bringing Mabille back to life and executing the locals in gore sacrifices. After the death of her father, Elvira (Emma Cohen) recalls that he has the Thor's Hammer amulet hidden in a well; together with Maurice, they try to defeat the demoniac Alaric de Marnac and Mabille.

Last weekend I bought a box of horror genre with five DVDs of Paul Naschy per US$ 9.98; despite of having no references, I decided to take the chance. The first DVD with the uncut and restored version 'Horror Rises from the Tomb' is a trash B (or C) movie that immediately made me recall Ed Wood. The ridiculous story is disclosed through awful screenplay, direction, performances, cinematography, decoration, special effects and edition and with lots of naked women. The result is simply hilarious and I can guarantee that Ed Wood's style is back. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.

'Earth' is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on 'Planet earth' which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for 'Earth' but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each 'chapter' starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film.


Steven Spielberg produced, wrote, came up with ideas for and even directed episodes of Amazing Stories, so naturally this would have to be the greatest anthology ever right? Unfortunately wrong. Some episodes are just fantastic, but all too often it was a mixed bag. In fact, that might have been it's downfall is it was way too mixed. Some episodes were light comedies, some were dramas, some were horror, and one was even animated, which made this a similar, but not as good 80s version of the Twilight Zone (which also was around).

Normally I'd like having a mixture of stories in an anthology show, but they just didn't fully work here. Some of the more fantastical dramatic episodes felt like they would be better being shown late on night on the Lifetime network, like the episode 'Ghost Train', which was directed by Spielberg himself. In that episode, it gave the message of hope, and gave us a fantasy story, but overall it was just a build up to the ending which didn't blow me away anyways. The horror episodes tended to work better than the drama, but there were far more dramatic ones, and they grow tiring to watch. Acting wise, this anthology got some big stars, similar to the original Twilight Zone. Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, Milton Berle, Dom Deluise, Harvey Keitel, Beau Bridges, Charlie Sheen, Forrest Whitaker, Tim Robbins, John Lithgow, Rhea Perlman, Danny Devito, Patrick Swayze, Christopher Lloyd, June Lockhart, Kathy Baker, Weird Al Yankovich and many other well knowns have been in episodes of the show. It's fun to see well known actors in almost every episode of the series. Great directors have also had part in episodes including Spielberg himself, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Bob Clark, Joe Dante, Mick Garris, Paul Bartel, Joe Dante, Robert Zemeckis, Danny Devito and even Martin Scorsese. I'd actually recommend this more to fans of the directors and/or the 80s than anyone else.

Amazing Stories was sometimes amazing, usually good, occasionally mediocre, and every once in a while a real stinker came out. But, this show has nostalgic value to me, and it's sort of fun to sit on boring afternoons and watch some episodes. John Williams' theme music for the show is sure to be caught in anyone's head who watches this, too.

My rating: Good show. 30 mins. per episode. TVPG


If you like mech war games it's pretty good. Some of it is cheap but the robot fights is worth seeing. I've enjoyed the mech war field for some time and this is pretty much the only movie I've ever seen that come close to that feeling of what it would be like to pilot one of those huge mechs. If you like the genera then games you like are Mech Warrior Three and four and if you have an Xbox and $350 to spare Steel Battalion. The movie is worth seeing at least once. There really needs to be some more movies on the same theme out there. Less remakes and more original works.

Enjoy


I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. 'Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus.' I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused 'tension' with 'boredom'.

I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.

So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's 'bloodthirsty' enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.

Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.

The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says 'I'm in pain, shoot me'. And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.

(Rhetorical pause.)

In the stomach. 'Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP.'


Chokher Bali  A passion play.

Based on Rabindranath Tagore's novel of the same name, this is a classic tale of deception, adultery and relationship exploitation. Set in 1900 Bengal, director Rituparno Ghosh transformed the Nobel Laureates' acclaimed literature into a delightful visual treat.

Tagore's story elaborately deals with the Bengali society, through his central character, the rebellious widow, who wants to live a life of her own. We are taken into the picturesque part of Bengal, where we meet our heroine, the beautiful, young widow Binodini (Aishwarya Rai).

Despite her gorgeous looks, two handsome men, the rich Mahindra (Prosenjit Chatterji) and his friend Behari (Toto Roychowdhury), denied marrying her.

Mahindra chooses a naive Ashalata (Raima Sen) over Binodini and marries her. Leaving behind the country life, the free-spirited Binodini accompanies Mahindra's mother to Calcutta as a caretaker. Soon, her friendship with Ashalata flourishes. It looks like, the two, addressing each other as 'Chokher Bali' (sand in the eyes), share an enduring bond. The English-speaking Binodini captures a special place in the house. But, soon, she unmasks her real face. Manipulating good-natured Ashlata, Binodini gets closer with Mahindra and fulfills her sexual desires.

When, she is thrown out by the enraged mother of Mahindra, Binodini seeks solace from a reluctant Behari. The remaining part of the story shows how the lives of these four characters crisscross and culminate in an unimaginable climax Aishwarya walks through the rolea manipulative, rebellious lady, still gaining the viewer's sympathywith a ballet dancer's elegance. The other lead artistesProsenjit Chatterjee, Raima Sen and Toto Roychowdhuryare equally brilliant, in enacting their characters.

While Tagore penned this 'mould-breaking' story at the turn of the 20th century, the very idea of widow marriage was a taboo, even among the upper class! Narrating the nations' freedom movement in parallel, the author asserts the importance of individual freedom from the caged life. Kudos to the art director, who gave life to the early 20th century Bengal, and applause to the cinematographer for capturing those sets with verve.

This 'passion play,' by Tagore, has been fervently converted to the screen by the ablest filmmaker without loosing its originality.


one of the best low budget movies from Germany! is this is the dark side of new age? if you believe in esoteric, please don't watch this movie! it blows all your positive fantasies away. this movie shows that beyond the peaceful façade of spiritual soul searching lies a world of extreme transgressions and terror. i hope there will be a 35 mm copy soon! Andreas Marschall's first film is just the beginning of a new area, making movies with a few euros! i'm waiting for the second hit!


I am pretty surprised to see that this movie earned even lukewarm reviews, I found this movie downright awful. The plot flounders around trying to decide if it is a comedy or a thriller, then realizes it cannot achieve either. So it throws in the towel and continues with its absurd plot highlighted with a unintentional hilarious scene with Laura Linney, an injection, and spilled coffee that leaves the audience awkwardly squirming in their seats looking at one another like is this for real? Basically it is abysmal and really disappointing for Robin Williams fans, and it makes you think someone blackmailed Laura Linney into adding this piece of trash to her otherwise respectable resume. I wanted to leave after 10 minutes and wish I had, even seeing it for free I wanted someone to pay me for my wasted time. The computer glitch/twist in this movie was embarrassingly stupid, and by the end you don't care who wins the election. I vote for straight to DVD.


'Fungicide' is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful 'film' I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.

Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the 'film'-makers will say that, yes, the 'film' was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.

Starting the 'movie' it wasn't as though I was expecting 'Citizen Kane' or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.

The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a 'fuse' - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).

That summary is as good as the 'film' gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said 'NO.'

And those 'special' effects. Well, they're 'special' all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).

One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.

I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The 'film'-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.

I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the 'movie.' 'Fungicide' is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical.


The first time I saw this film I was a kid. I was ten years old when it was released but since my family never went to movie theaters I saw it on Network TV. I remember watching it aloneand crying afterward. It was only the second film to illicit that response (Rocky was the first) and there haven't been many since. I can't say why exactly; Larry 'Rain' Murphy didn't deserve to win any more that Rocky Balboa or anyone else. I know I admired Murphy, not so much for what he did, but for the way he did his time. Stoic. He didn't need a stopwatch or freedom to find dignity. He ran because he could. He needed no other reason. I have a rule today, that when I see this film late at night on cable television (the only time most will come across it) I must watch, no matter what I have to do the next morning. Fortunately it doesn't play often like Shawshank Redemption or other favorites, so I still get plenty of sleep and I never tire of the story of one man's unrepentant imprisonment and personal victory.


Horrendous 'comedy' in which a beautiful, crazy woman (Liv Tyler) 'comedically' destroys the lives of three men (Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser and John Goodman). Dillon hires a hit man (Michael Douglas) to kill her. What is happening to comedy? The year 2001 has produced some of the worst comedies ever (Saving Silverman, Sugar and Spice, Freddy Got Fingered, Tomcats, etc etc). This is one of the worst. There's not one, repeat, not ONE funny moment in it. The jokes are either stupid, unfunny, smutty or real sick. Also there's a strong hatred of women in this garbage--the only main female character (Tyler) is constantly used as a sex object. Also extreme, bloody violence is thrown in at the end. The only bearable moments come from Reba McEntire as a psychiatrist and Andrew Dice Clay in two roles--both psychos. Dillon, Goodman and Reiser have hit an all-time career low with this--the only way to go is up. And poor Tyler! She quit doing intelligent, gutsy independent films for THIS? And DOUGLAS???? What was he on when he agreed to this? An utter piece of crap--to be avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!


The makers of this film have created a future where not only is abortion and birth control illegal in every state,but women are prosecuted for murder and sent away to serve long prison sentences.In other words,this film is every liberals worst nightmare!The political agenda is so heavy-handed here and the style of the film is so low-key that it just loses steam pretty quickly.Regardless of which side of the fence you're on,I'd recommend skipping it.


I normally don't like romantic films, but I love this film very much. The story is really touching, and the ending is very appropriate. I feel I really care for many characters in this film. I feel I can feel their feelings. While most romantic films always make me feel detached and bored, this one completely makes me feel involved, starting from the scene of Capshaw running along the beach with Scott until the ending scene. I want to rate this film 11 out of 10, because I want to give an extra one point for the ending. The acting part is very strong. Kate Capshaw has a good opportunity to show her talent. Though I'm not impressed with Scott in `Dead Man on Campus,' this film completely changes my viewpoint towards him. He's so irresistibly charming here. Geraldine McEwan is as terrific as ever.

 This film might not be as good, complex, deep, or believable as other films which deal a little bit with the same kind of relationship, such as `L'ecole de la chair' or 'Post coitum, animal triste,' but `The Love Letter' can still be proud of itself as it casts a rare different light on that kind of relationship. And that difference makes this film eminently enjoyable. By being unambitious and relying on great charms of small stars, Dreamworks, this time you really make my dream come true.


No Strings Attached is one of Carlos Mencia's best performances to date. Mencia is known for poking and making fun of racial issues. However, he does more than that in this stand-up performance, which took place in San Francisco. In general, Mencia's material does not only make you laugh but it also makes you think about what is really wrong with society today.

In this hour long performance, Mencia talks about such things as illegal immigration, what women really mean when they ask for equality in the workplace, terrorism, his opinion of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and an argument that he got into with a woman regarding whether or not he is affected by Jesus, and how society should treat those that are physically or mentally handicapped. Mencia even discusses whether or one should have the right to speak out and tell a joke.

Carlos Mencia is not afraid to offend, which at many times gets him trouble with his critics. For example, he does go somewhat far (and he admits it) with a joke regarding Pope John Paul II and what he is most likely doing in heaven right now.

Mencia's main message in all of his performances is that we all have have a voice and that we should use that voice to speak what we feel and not be afraid to offend. He reminds us that we have a right to free speech and that we must use this right as Americans.

If you enjoy this performance, I definitely recommend watching Mind of Mencia, his show on Comedy Central.


The most obvious flaw...horrible, horrible script. This movie had a potentially good story, but it was ruined with bad dialogue, continuity problems, things that were never explained, gaping plotholes, sub-plots that went nowhere, and just plain stupidity. Not to mention the awful, cliched directing of Sandra Locke. Not even two great performances could've saved this movie. So it didn't matter that Devon Gummersall and Rosanna Arquette give horrific performances. The thing is, they're better actors than this movie would have you believe. The best of the Arquettes, Rosanna Arquette (Silverado, After Hours, Desperately Seeking Susan) has some fine moments - like a great scene in the beginning when she painfully pulls her handcuffs off - but gives an overall weak performance, by her standards. And Devon Gummersall (Dick, When Trumpets Fade, and the brilliant My So-Called Life) is much worse, acting with no conviction or emotion what-so-ever. But I won't lay blame on the actors, who have been good in other roles. The script is awful, and the bad direction doesn't help. Do me a favor...avoid this movie.


I just viewed Jean Renoir's wonderful film, French Can Can. It is a visual delight and a great entertainment. The recently produced Moulin Rouge pales by comparison. I didn't quite get all of the praise that the recent movie received. Now I'm convinced more than ever, that my appraisal was correct after seeing a master film maker like Jean Renoir's version of the same story. He succeeded in getting great performances out of his entire cast, and the great French actor, Jean Gabin was in rare form. The dance sequence near the end was one of the most exciting one I'd ever seen. It was long, but I didn't want it to end. This film deserves to receive more recognition than it's got.


These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the 'surprise' ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say 'it was all in his/her head' and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).


The idea is not original... If you have seen such kind of story before, you would know what the ending would come out after watching for the first twenty minutes... the script, the positioning of the actors and the screening is too obvious... If you haven't seen such story before, it is definitely a good experience, you will enjoy the twist at the end...don't forget to watch it again after you know the 'truth', you will even more enjoy the plots... Even though I have a right guess at the very beginning, I still couldn't help stick on my seat till the end...

Conclusion: A must see!! This one from Korea is better than any recent movies of the genre from Japan...forget Hollywood!

Don't miss it!!


This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a 'sexual social worker' in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!

The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.


Just a great soundtrack. Really enjoyable music. Outstanding cast, great lead performance. Worth watching.

Doesn't really explain what happened to the neighborhood. You are left feeling that integration is to blame or that with the departure of the lead character the neighborhood disintegrated.

This movie seems well researched and extremely well crafted. I especially enjoyed some of the minor characters like Jeffrey Wright.

The cutting during the opening sequence helps express what a lively, engaging and desirable experience that nightclub would have been with the jump music, food, drink, dancing, gambling and sex.


The biggest heroes, is one of the greatest movies ever. A good story, great actors and a brilliant ending is what makes this film the jumping start of the director Thomas Vinterberg's great carrier.


First let me be honest. I did not watch all this movie. I watched the first five minutes and when i realized that I had nearly fallen to sleep i decided that I may as well fast forward and see if it got any more interesting later on... It didn't. This film is just a collection of lame attempts to make a story which is already uninteresting and badly told into something that it would never become: a decent horror movie. Because I feel it is important to say that even a movie with poor special effects can still be good if it is well made. This film isn't and will only put you into a deep sleep if you attempt to watch it. Lastly I feel it is important to say that I think this movie is in the publicdomain so if you feel that you must absolutely watch it than a littlesearch on the internet will surely show you a place where you won't need to pay to watch this pile of cinematographic dung.


This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.

Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.

I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.

Grade: D


My brain was screaming 'why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!' But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.

I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.

It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.


Considering John Doe apparently inspired Kyle XY's creator I was expecting its pilot to be quite interesting. However I probably had too high expectations because I was quite disappointed by it. First they turned the protagonist into a freak who had the crazy idea of showing off his amazing knowledge in front of an audience, in a public area. So after that scene I began to worry that it was just entertainment. But the problem is that it got worse as none of the other characters were properly introduced. They focused too much on John Doe which made the story far less intriguing. I was also slightly disappointed by Dominic Purcell's performance because I found he didn't make a believable John Doe. An other problem was the police story. It really felt like déjà vu and it wasn't a pleasant sensation. It leads us to the worst issue in the bunch, the episodic format. I could already see the fillers coming one after an other.

So overall I was very disappointed by it and don't recommend it to anyone. Considering how bad it was I better understand now why the show got canceled. In some way I have the impression that it missed its target, developing characters to help the protagonist find his own identity. It's sad because there was potential, like the people he met at the club. The production quality was also quite good and the casting correct. But I'll never know if it got better, probably not, because I don't plan to watch the next episode.


The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - 'this aint f***ing Disneyworld' is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.


I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.

Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.

Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of 'The original party animals'. Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.

As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.


I just sat through a very enjoyable fast paced 45 mins of ROLL.

Roll is about a country boy, Mat (Toby Malone) who has dreams of becoming a Sports Star. Mat travels to the city and is to be picked up by his cousin George (Damien Robertson). Well, that was the plan anyway. George is involved with a gangster, Tiny (John Batchelor) and is making a delivery for him. Needless to say, Mat gets dragged into George's world.

I thought it was great how Mat teaches George some morals and respect while George teaches Mat how to relax and enjoy life a little. Toby and Damien were well cast together and did an outstanding job.

Every character in the movie complimented each other very well, the two cops were great. David Ngoombujarra brought some great comic relief to the movie. Tiny played a likable gangster that reminded me of one of my favourite characters 'Pando' from Two Hands.

One of the other things that I liked about Roll was that it showcased the cities that I grew up and lived in for 20 years, Perth and Fremantle. It was good to see sights and landmarks that I grew up with, especially the old Ferris wheel.

This Rocks 'n' Rolls


This is what we can do to each other. This is the sort that everbody should see at least once.

It does not glorify world. It shows that it is the everyday person who is killed, mained and debased by war. The person on the 'other side' eats sleeps, laughs and cry just as we do.


'Dracula II:Ascension' is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!'Dracula II:Ascension' is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like 'Lips of Blood','The Brides of Dracula' or 'Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural' to name only a few.4 out of 10.


Chi-hwa-seong (Painted Fire) recounts the life of Korean painter Jang Seong-ub amidst the changing political landscape of late 19th century Korea.

However, the themes of this film center around the process of artistic creation through the fire of desire of the artist and the expectations and demands of their audience and society.

Jang seong-ub is played masterfully as a complex character who changes from the innocent excitement of youth to a hardened alcoholic tortured soul. This characterization mirrors the young eager artist that finds it more and more difficult to invoke the spirit of artistic creation within himself without letting the creative fire out via drink, erections, and desire.

Although this character development proceeds overall gradually through the film, the emotional complexity of Jang is still played in a constantly oscillating manner building to the films' finale. Interestingly, the montage of the film parallels this constantly changing and seemingly wild emotion or fire of the artist as scenes seamlessly transition from one time and location to another without any conventional 'cues' to the audience that such a scene change will occur. For example, many scenes would change seemingly in mid conversation picking up at another point and location.

The visual scenery of the film is presented beautifully and also oscillates from stark (and perhaps bleak) black and white scenery to more colorful and alive environments that again parallel the paintings of Jang either in simple black ink on white paper or with color added. Rainbows of color enter the film at points as the artist observes nature and especially women that then become reflected in his paintings.

The theme of an artist's individual desire to create versus the expectations and demands of society arises in the film through various points including class distinction, the domination of government over the artist, the accepted norms of the artistic elite, and the base desires of the common masses. Instead of creating his own completely original works, Jang finds himself mostly recreating masterpieces of other artists throughout East Asia. The question thus arises if recreation itself deserves artistic merit.

I wish that I was more familiar with the political events of the period to firmly grasp how they tied into the story - but beyond any comparison to the current role of Korean government in artistic expression and/or censorship I cannot comment.

Overall an extremely well acted film and the cinematography is often breathtaking. A great film to see and then ponder over.


This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time.


A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was 'somewhat shocking' but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...

Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.


Absolutely corrosive! Director Arthur Hiller and writer Paddy Chayefsky dismantle the American hospital system with this wicked comedy/drama/whodunit. The hospital depicted here is fraught with problems...from protesting neighbors to irate patients to a potential serial killer on the loose. George C. Scott is the top doctor who, on the brink of his own nervous breakdown, gets involved with free-spirited Diana Rigg and her wacky father Barnard Hughes. Alternately depressing and uproarious, THE HOSPITAL features some of the most acid-tinged dialog imaginable (note how Scott describes his love making session with Rigg). It also has a lot of great vignettes: Scott berating head nurse Nancy Marchand after one of here underlings accidentally kills a doctor; daffy administrator Frances Sternhagen trying desperately to collect insurance info from a waiting room full of sick people; Scott getting sobering advice from the hospital psychiatrist after telling him of his woeful home-life. All of the acting is first-rate. Scott and Rigg are dynamite and Hughes is a real surprise. The movie is a masterpiece with Chayefsky's script earning a well-deserved Oscar (over such stiff competition as KLUTE & Sunday, BLOODY Sunday). The opening narration is priceless.


Cliche romance drama movie with very simple plot but very good cinematography and script.The screenplay,directing and acting was also good.The flow of the movie is kind of manipulative in order to bring the audience to tears through the excellent love music and circumstance which works but later on after the movie,makes one feel raped in a way.Jones makes her character very memorable and lovable though.A deeper story could have reaaly taken this movie to a higher level but still,the movie delivers for it's genre.Only for hopeless romantics,big love story fans,big soap drama fans,50's Cinemascope cinematography fans and fans of the lead actors.....


If this movie is coming to a theater near you, consider it a threat. I was unfortunate enough to see this movie here in Tokyo. Since I'm Dutch, I was surprised to find a Dutch movie playing in a metropole like Tokyo is. I figured it had to be somekind of special if a Dutch movie makes it all the way to Japan. So I went there with some friends, and we were happily telling the theater's staff that we were Dutch and that we were so curious about the movie. As it turned out, this was one of the most infantile, silly, dumb, worst acted, with worst spoken English movie I've seen in maybe 10 years, and I left the theater trying to avoid the staff, because feeling almost responsible for this disaster movie. Sometimes you get the feeling you know what the director was aiming for: Lola Rennt, Trainspotting kind of like movie. Instead it was more like MacGyver on drugs with outdated breakbeat music as a score. But if I wasn't feeling too annoyed, the movie was unintentionally quite hilarious once in a while, as it showed Holland at its smallest.