This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like 'Straight Jacket''s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on 'The Tingler,' and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.


You know that this film is in SERIOUS trouble when the BEST acting job is the support role played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. While this was still relatively early in his career and he wasn't the best actor, compared to Brigitte Nielsen, he's Sir John Gielgud. In fact, this film proves that the only reason she got much of any attention were her boobs and because she was involved with the incredibly self-destructive football player, Mark Gastineau. So, instead of this being her 'break out film', this and a Beverly Hills Cop movie mark about as high as she went in her one-note career. It was obvious, too, that the financing wizards gave up on this movie as well, because the supporting cast (aside from Arnold) is pretty lame and the script is dull, dull, dull. Fans looking for another CONAN movie would no doubt be very disappointed in this slow and uninvolving film.


This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.

I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages.


How to summarize this film ? it is simply impossible. Why you should see it ? maybe for the story, very probably for the actors (Giorgio, Catherine...), above all for the universe and the poetry. This is a tale. Sad, sometimes dark, but a tale. I LOVE this film !!!! Just waiting for the DVD !! Thank you mister Boutonnat.


I thought Rachel York was fantastic as 'Lucy.' I have seen her in 'Kiss Me, Kate' and 'Victor/Victoria,' as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!

I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in 'Lucy.' Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, 'So what?' I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply 'doing' classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.

I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of 'I Love Lucy' throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.

I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. 'Lucy' was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.


As a fan of bad movies (and MST3K, and a member of MFT3K), I must say I've seen my share of them. But geez! Even the worst I've seen at least had a soundtrack. As George Lazenby stiffly wanders around Hong Kong, doing who knows what, you can guarantee that you won't be distracted by any of that background music that fills todays cinema. Or any of that music that fills elevators. I don't think anyone in this film even hums.

Now, this isn't entirely true -- there *is* a sound track. if you listen closely, you will hear it chime in about a half-dozen times through the course of the film. Of course, the timing will be entirely inappropriate, and it doesn't last very long, but something that could be classified as 'music' does occur. Your best bet, though, is to sit your toddler armed with a wooden spoon down in front of the TV with a collection of pots and pans while you watch. The rhythm and flow would be better than anything the film offers.

Keep an eye out for Sammo Hung as a minor villian in this film. Aren't we all glad he found Jackie Chan to work with?


Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making 'boring.' You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius.

'HealtH' is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.

And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.

If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.

It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it.


It is noteworthy that mine is only the third review of this film, whereas `Patton- Lust for Glory', producer Frank McCarthy's earlier biography of a controversial American general from the Second World War, has to date attracted nearly a hundred comments. Like a previous reviewer, I am intrigued by why one film should have received so much more attention than the other.

One difference between the two films is that `Patton' is more focused, concentrating on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the Second World War, whereas `MacArthur' covers not only this war but also its subject's role in the Korean war, as well as his period as American governor of occupied Japan during the interlude.

The main difference, however, lies in the way the two leaders are played. Gregory Peck dominates this film even more than George C. Scott dominated `Patton'. Whereas Scott had another major star, Karl Malden, playing opposite him as General Bradley, none of the other actors in `MacArthur' are household names, at least for their film work. Scott, of course, portrayed Patton as aggressive and fiery-tempered, a man who at times was at war with the rest of the human race, not just with the enemy. I suspect that in real life General MacArthur was as volcanic an individual as Patton, but that is not how he appears in this film. Peck's MacArthur is of a more reflective, thoughtful bent, comparable to the liberal intellectuals he played in some of his other films. At times, he even seems to be a man of the political left. Much of his speech on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945 could have been written by a paid-up member of CND, and his policies for reforming Japanese society during the American occupation have a semi-socialist air to them. In an attempt to show something of MacArthur's gift for inspiring leadership, Peck makes him a fine speaker, but his speeches always seem to owe more to the studied tricks of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart. It is as if Atticus Finch from `To Kill a Mockingbird' had put on a general's uniform.<br /><br />Whereas Scott attempted a `warts and all' portrait of Patton, the criticism has been made that `MacArthur' attempts to gloss over some of its subject's less attractive qualities. I think that this criticism is a fair one, particularly as far as the Korean War is concerned. The film gives the impression that MacArthur was a brilliant general who dared stand up to interfering, militarily ignorant politicians who did not know how to fight the war and was sacked for his pains when victory was within his grasp. Many historians, of course, feel that Truman was forced to sack MacArthur because the latter's conduct was becoming a risk to world peace, and had no choice but to accept a stalemate because Stalin would not have allowed his Chinese allies to be humiliated. Even during the Korean scenes, Peck's MacArthur comes across as more idealistic than his real-life original probably was; we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matters. (Truman 's remark `he knows as much about politics as a pig knows about Sunday' was said about Eisenhower, but it could equally well have been applied to MacArthur's approach to international diplomacy). Perhaps the film's attempt to paint out some of MacArthur's warts reflects the period in which it was made. The late seventies, after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, was a difficult time for America, and a public looking for reassurance might have welcomed a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation. Another criticism I would make of the film is that it falls between two stools. If it was intended to be a full biography of MacArthur, something should have been shown of his early life, which is not covered at all. (The first we see of the general is when he is leading the American resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines). One theme that runs throughout the film is the influence of General MacArthur's father, himself a military hero. I would have liked to see what sort of man Arthur MacArthur was, and just why his son considered him to be such a hero and role model. Another interesting way of making the film would have been to concentrate on Korea and on MacArthur's clash with Truman, with equal prominence given to the two men and with actors of similar stature playing them. The way in which the film actually was made seemed to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approaches.

It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that I disliked the film altogether. Although I may not have agreed with Peck's interpretation of the main role, there is no denying that he played it with his normal professionalism and seriousness. The film as a whole is a good example of a solid, workmanlike biopic, thoughtful and informative. It is a good film, but one that could have been a better one. 7/10.

On a pedantic note, the map which MacArthur is shown using during the Korean War shows the DMZ, the boundary between the two Korean states that did not come into existence until after the war. (The pre-war boundary was the 38th parallel). Also, I think that MacArthur was referring to the `tocsin' of war. War may be toxic, but it is difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin.


In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale 'Romulus, My Father,' Eric Bana, of 'Munich' fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).

Even though I admire 'Romulus, My Father' for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again.


Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that 'It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.'


Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The 'scene' from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!

Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy 'punk' performance from a Damned wannabe 'Babel'. Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.

Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.


Though predictable and contrived, not a bad movie. It entertains, which is all Van Damme hopes to do. The omnipresent 'twin' device is again used (as in a large number of Van Damme's movies) but it is not bothersome except to long time fans. Natasha is gorgeous and worth watching. Action is decent, nothing spectacular for Van Damme but exciting. I can recommend to Van Damme fans and even to those who aren't but don't mind an action film with a good looking lead couple. The Russian Mob is a nice concept and topical for the day. Clearly, not his best film but by no means his worst.


After reading the reviews I am so relieved to know that I am not the only person who was very disappointed in this movie! I am a HUGE Nicholas Sparks fan, have read ALL of his books, most of them more than once. Of course I LOVED The Notebook and A Walk to Remember...I haven't yet seen Message in a Bottle or Nights in Rodanthe so I can't comment on those...

But I did go see Dear John this past weekend and I was terribly upset! The movie was not good at all! When looking at the movie alone, and not thinking about the book at all, it was still a terrible movie. I did not get the rush and range of emotions from this movie that I have got from other movies I enjoyed, especially The Notebook. I was not smiling and laughing and crying and worried and scared...ever! From the very beginning all I could notice was how they changed everything! The only thing about this movie that is similar to the book is that there is a guy named John who is in the military and a girl named Savannah who is not....the part about his Dad being obsessed with coins is about the only other part that went along with the book. Everything else was totally off!!!! First of all, in the book, Allen was Tim's little brother, NOT his son! WHY they had to change that, I don't understand. It made a lot more sense how it went in the book when Tim was just a little bit older than Savannah and they grew up together and Allen was Savannah's inspiration for wanting to work with horses and autistic children....that didn't happen in the movie....ugh...And in the book they spent a lot more time together than just those initial 2 weeks and then the 1 night...why did they leave those times out??? I could go on and on and on but then I would run out of space! So basically, if you are a great fan of Nicholas Sparks, don't waste your time or money on this movie...just read the book again...because it's terrible and nothing like the book!


I resisted seeing this movie and I understand why it was not a big hit in theatres. 'October Sky' feels and looks oh so familiar. And it is. All plot contrivances and emotions have been explored before in other films -- and possibly even better. But despite it's familiarity and resistance to all formulas Hollywood, this movie is winning and likeable at every turn.

Sputnik is the inspiration for this journey of the heart, mind and soul. Just as the characters from Steven Sondheim's musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG stood agape atop their apartment roof hoping it would launch their new generation ('What do you call it? You call it a miracle.'), Sputnik has a similar affect on the young rocket boys of this true tale. While jaded townsfolk of their 1950's coal town dismiss the event, Homer Hickham sees Sputnik as his ticket out of a life in the mines.

Masterful direction and casting make the journey of rocket boy Homer and his pals seem fresh and new. Especially affecting are subplots concerning Homer's ailing young school teacher. Remarkable restraint is shown in depicting their delicate relationship. Also remarkable is the father / son supblot that anchors the film. Perfectly played all around. Even Homer's mom gets her moment without cliche or intrusion. Her ultimatum to her husband is both dignified and heatbreaking. 'Myrtle Beach' says it all.

A major video chain I despise has a sign next to this film stating that you'll love this film or they'll refund your money. For once, I agree with them. You'll never look at the October sky quite the same again.


On the 1998 summer blockbuster hit BASEketball (1998): 'This is one of those movies that is usually seen on the big jumbo-tron screen in a sports bar during the day - when everyone is quite drunk. Unfortunately, I was sober when I saw this movie.'

So quoted the late Gene Siskel for this lame-brained, supposed yukfest that came out two weeks after the far superior 'There's Something About Mary' in a one-upmanship game during July of 1998. 'Mary' was a gross-out fest, but in addition to the many gags, it had a lot of heart, which is why it was the highest grossing comedy of that memorable summer.

'BASEketball' tried to outdo Mary, but it fizzled in more ways that one. You take the creators of 'South Park,' Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who are fortunately not behind the movie but in front of the camera, the only member of ZAZ David Zucker helming the picture in desperate need of a paycheck, and the other two Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker clearly stayed out or probably warned him against the picture, a small bit by now 90 years young Ernest Borgnine, wasting his precious time in his distinguished career, dying on a hotdog and singing 'I'm Too Sexy' as he videotapes his will, Jenny McCarthy, who has little screen time as Borgnine's not-too-weeping trophy widow young enough to be his granddaughter, a bigger female part by Yasmine Bleeth as a dedicated social worker whose charges are underprivileged youngsters, and the only interesting and meaningful player in this turkey, Robert Vaughn as a corrupt archrival, and pointless cameos by 'Airplane!' alumni Kareem Abdul Jabaar and the late Robert Stack who seemed nostalgic for the 1980 masterpiece and it's much fresher humor created by the ZAZ family. What do all these people make up? A desperate cast and crew trying to replicate 'Airplane!' humor and mixing it up with the crudity of 'South Park,' but failing in every way.

To make this long 100-minute movie short, 'BASEketball,' a real game invented by David Zucker and his friends in his hometown of Milwaukee, is about two lazy losers (Parker and Stone) and their pint-sized mutual friend who invent baseball and basketball (hence the title) together on the driveway of one's house. After Borgnine dies, he bequeaths the ownership of his BASEketball team, the Milwaukee Beers to Parker and Stone. Sure enough, the game goes national, and archrivals Vaughn and McCarthy want to take away ownership of the Beers team from them. But Bleeth is in love with both men, particularly Parker, and one poor, sick charge in need of a liver transplant goes ga-ga over them. Those are the characters, not strongly developed.

Now witless gags ensue. Blood, electroshock hair, egg-throwing and screaming are among them. Parker and Stone nearly kill the youngster in the hospital, but he pulls through the liver transplant. Borgnine sings and rubs ointment on his chest in the videotaped will. McCarthy, who seemed to get over Borgnine's death by choking on a frank right away, quickly massages Vaughn in the next scene. Cheerleaders dance in skimpy outfits. There is plenty of music on the soundtrack that is played for the hard of hearing. And David Zucker forces the parodies of 'Riverdance' and 'Titanic.' Parody forcing is nothing new to ZAZ, post 'Airplane!' and 'The Naked Gun' series.

And like Siskel, I was sober as well, but I was also getting sleepy. This movie should be played over and over to coarse-mannered barroom patrons who enjoy it as they chug down beers, but will they remain alert and awake, or pass out during the unfunny parts? If they pass out, then they won't realize that they are luckily missing stupidity and absurdity. Hats off to them!


The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost/horror films from the East has been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay or similar.

It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended. Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here.

It is also genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of release along the way.

If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it 10/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge 'pleasure' from this film which I for one hope goes down as a classic.


From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about 'Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!'

The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!

The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!

The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!!

This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated 'The last neighborhood in America'


'Red Sonja' is flawed, weak and lacking. Even the camp-ness isn't good.

There are only two good things about 'Red Sonja'; The costumes (even though the Red Sonja costume is ridiculous. It's ironic that a girl who is even afraid to be touched by men, because she was raped, still choose to wear so few little clothes, even when it rains.) and the music by Ennio Morricone. Still the movie is somewhat watchable but certainly not recommendable.

The story is extremely simple and they didn't even bother to make it interesting. The story could have been forgotten if there had been some good action sequences and some humor, both are present but are seriously flawed in many ways. The movie takes itself too serious and tries to impress but fails completely.

Brigitte Nielsen is an horrible leading lady. I don't know who's accent is worse; Hers or Arnie's and on top of that; She can't act. There is also absolutely no chemistry between the two characters which makes the love story totally unbelievable. Even worse was Sandahl Bergman as the main villain who acts more poorly than a paper bag. Ronald Lacey was somewhat good in his role, but my God he looked horrible, he changed so much since his (only well known) role in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. Maybe it had something to do with his illness which claimed his life in 1991? And by the way, what was with all those 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' actors in this movie? Next to Ronald Lacey, Pat Roach, Terry Richards and Tutte Lemkow appeared in a role, it seemed like some kind of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' reunion.

The only times when the movie gets a bit interesting is during the (sword)fights even though some of them are needless and weak.

Only really watchable for the fans of the fantasy-genre.

4/10


Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.

It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!

And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.

If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!

Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...


Bela Lugosi appeared in several of these low budget chillers for Monogram Studios in the 1940's and The Corpse Vanishes is one of the better ones.

Bela plays a mad scientist who kidnaps young brides and kills them and then extracts fluid from their bodies so he can keep his ageing wife looking young. After a reporter and a doctor stay the night at his home and discover he is responsible for the brides' deaths, the following morning they report these murders to the police and the mad scientist is shot and drops dead shortly afterwards.

You have got almost everything in this movie: the scientist's assistants consist of an old hag, a hunchback and dwarf (her sons), a thunderstorm and spooky passages in Bela's house. Bela and his wife find they sleep better in coffins rather than beds in the movie.

The Corpse Vanishes is worth a look, especially for Bela Lugosi fans. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.


Picking up right after the Moscow-showdown of Supremacy, this is Bourne's greatest adventure and his final climax. Throughout the tight, 115-min-runtime the movie takes Bourne from Russia to Madrid, Paris, Marocco and ultimately New York. Damon is every inch of the hard-trained killer Robert Ludlum imagined, he is the most deadly spy in the movies right now, and it's the underpinned emotions to his character that makes him so believable, and it's exactly the fine way Damon manages to combine these two polar-opposites of himself that's so breathtaking. In this third, Bourne is on a mission to save his soul and while watching it, Ultimatum delivers such an high-octane performance that you'll find yourself sweating and gasping over its truly powerful branch of ideas and pull-offs; just look out for two great car-chases and a fight-scene as realistic as Bond vs. Shaw back in '63. Director Greengrass has surpassed himself with this compelling thriller and this is probably as exciting as cinema thrillers get; a true pay-off to Bourne fans and a new breed of spy-thriller standard.


Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.

Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.

First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...

They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...

Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.

Terrible, skip this one please.


I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.


Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.


You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This 'epic' about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny 'wisecracks' and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.

'A Yank in Libya' isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC 'extravaganza' just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.


I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!

But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study 'What not to do' in movies.


I remember watching this movie when it came out as a t.v. movie of the week in the early 1970's.

Although I haven't seen this movie in over 30 years I remember how creepy it was...the sister's dead body in the basement, the storm raging outside, the creepy house with no electricity and a killer still on the premises.

They just don't make t.v. movies like this one anymore. Elizabeth Montgomery was a very underrated actress and I liked her in not only 'Betwitched', but several of her post-Bewitched roles, such as this one and 1975's 'The Legend of Lizzie Borden'.

I really wish that someone would come out with a DVD that has several of the 1970's t.v. movie of the week on one DVD. Wouldn't it be awesome to watch 'When Michael Calls', 'Bad Ronald', 'Don't Be Afraid of the Dark', 'Crowhaven Farm', etc., all on one DVD? I know there is a market for a DVD like this for all of us baby boomers who grew up in the 1960's and 1970's. Maybe, if we are lucky, someday someone will offer us a DVD with a great selection of t.v. movies like this.


Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.

The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.

Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..


Victor Sjöström's 'Körkarlen' plunges the viewer into life's lower depths for much of its running time, with grim scenes of alcoholic degradation, family violence and suicidal despair, but the most memorable passages involve the mythic image of Death itself. Here Death is embodied as a ghostly horse-drawn carriage, driven by a wretched sinner who was the last person to die on the previous New Year's Eve. For one year the wretch must collect the souls of the newly departed, and after twelve months of this horrible servitude the driver's own soul is finally released when the last person to die on December 31st becomes the new driver.

The scenes involving this carriage (the film was known as 'The Phantom Carriage' or 'The Phantom Chariot' in English-speaking countries) are eerie and mesmerizing, utilizing double-exposure cinematography that was quite sophisticated for its time and still effective when seen today. Most strikingly, the carriage travels to the floor of the ocean to collect the soul of a person who drowned. As fascinating as these scenes are, however, the bulk of the film is concerned with the downward spiral of David Holm, played by the director himself in an understated portrayal of a man who has given up on the possibility of living a decent life. In flashbacks we see Holm enjoying a pleasant day at the beach with his wife, children and brother, and he appears to be a perfectly ordinary guy. Abruptly, without segue or explanation, we then see Holm as an alcoholic wreck, in trouble with the law and alienated from his family. Ordinarily this leap from Before to After might feel like a story-telling deficiency, but in this case the filmmakers trust us to fill in the familiar, sordid details on our own. It's suggested that Holm has been led astray by his convivial friend Georges, the drinking companion who first relates the tale of the Phantom Carriage, but whatever the cause of his downfall Holm appears to be a lost cause, a mean-spirited drunk who takes perverse pleasure in inflicting pain on his family and in refusing to reform.

While David Holm is our central figure the story's true catalyst is a young Salvation Army nurse who takes a sympathetic interest in his case and doggedly believes in him despite his hateful behavior. When the nurse herself is dying-- indirectly due to her ministrations on Holm's behalf --she demands to see him, and thus inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that will result in his recovery.

At times this film resembles Dickens' tale of Scrooge in its use of ghostly visitors who inspire a deeply flawed man to take stock of his life, suffer over his misbehavior, and reform. I was also reminded of Sjöström's 1917 drama 'Terje Vigen,' in which a man returns from jail to find his house empty and his family gone (a sequence echoed here). The director also reiterates a standard theme of Scandinavian folklore, found earlier in his 'Berg-Ejvind och hans hustru' (a.k.a. 'The Outlaw and His Wife,' 1918) that no man can outrun his fate. This time, however, it could be argued that David Holm actually succeeds in evading his seemingly inevitable fate, for he's given an unexpected second chance to make amends.

Viewers expecting a plunge into the supernatural will appreciate the sequences featuring the Phantom Carriage of the title, but may not be prepared for this film's painful examination of a troubled man's alcoholic downfall. But those with a taste for intense and powerful silent drama will appreciate 'Körkarlen' in its entirety. It stands with the best serious cinema of its era and is certainly one of Sjöström's most accomplished works.


one of the best and most inspirational movies about a different culture I've seen in years. tragic and touching. worth the watch. maybe a few times. We all know how brutal children can be. I know from my own and my brothers experiences as children and this movie hit the nail on the head. perfectly! The Kite running is amazing and I need to do research on the validity of that event. even though It is done in cgi it is still amazing and very interesting. to maneuver a kite like that with a single string seems impossible but they make it believable. anyway this movie has many twists and turns that are, I'm sure to many, probably easy to figure out but they hit me before I could. which makes a great movie for me! when you figure out the whole movie in the first 10 minutes it kind of ruins it. but this one does it so smoothly that it's hard to guess it even when it happens...I'm a guy and I don't mind saying that the tears were flowing at more than one point in this movie.


There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to 'be a family again,' then we don't WANT them to 'be a family.' What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?

THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as 'interesting.' This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as 'cool cause it's so far OUT, man!'). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT 'just in the film.' They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's 'the emperor's new clothes,' the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .

There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no 'hidden meaning' anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like 'Visitor Q.' Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS 'Visitor Q' is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are 'just in the film.' They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this.

There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's 'cool.' They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually.

Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's 'Cool' when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!


Jazz aficionados will treasure this classic short showing some of the best men of jazz just doing their thing. It's like watching a no frills music video today.

The jazz men give us an additional treat in the person of Marie Bryant who sings a classic version of On The Sunny Side Of The Street. I had never heard her sing before, Bryant sounds remarkably like Billie Holliday. That's a compliment folks.

Their instrumental work is tops as well. With the black cinema of its time fed a lot of white stereotypes, this film is to be watched and treasured. No great production values, just a lot of good music.


Worst. Movie. Ever.

What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original 'Dead' films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.

And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?

1/10


Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.

This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece

10/10


As we all know the sub-genre of sex comedies is pretty crowded. Simply being excessively raunchy isn't enough anymore. I've seen and heard so many disgusting jokes and actions that a sex comedy really needs to have other positive points to appeal to me these days.

Coming into the 40 Year Old Virgin I knew basically what to expect; I did see the commercials after all; 'is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?' What I didn't expect to find is a heart and honest attempts at character development. There's still the weird 'off-the-wall' characters that we see so much in Adam Sandler movies and there's still enough inappropriate language to sink Noah's Ark but somehow the movie has a worthwhile love story and yes even a message.

The main character Andy is (unfortunately for me) a person I can relate to. In the first shot I see that he even shares my love for Mystery Science Theater 3000 (he has a poster for the movie on his wall) and throughout the movie we get to see his really neat collection of antiquities. Andy also has plenty of video games and a working knowledge of films and technology. Andy doesn't want to buy a car because he prefers his bike. Most importantly of all; Andy is a nice person, he doesn't swear and he respect women so much that he stays away from them. Combine all these factors and everybody begins to think he's a serial murderer. It's like my life story.

The other characters each have funny little stories to go along with their slightly exaggerated personalities and they all work on a certain level but not the way Andy does. I felt that it was sort of distracting in a way since Andy and his girlfriend Trish are really the only truly human characters in the entire movie.

I suppose since I mentioned one flaw I might as well bring the other noticeable one to light. The story is clever but too predictable and as far as romances go; it's quite simple. It deals with Andy's relationship with Trish for a long time and we all know what's going to happen in the end. Sure its final detour is a bit different than we may expect but you know what's going to happen in the end, and I assure you it does. These are definitely small stains on the movie but there's so much good here that I can easily ignore it's few faults.

When I say 'good' I mean 'bad' of course. This is a sex comedy and it wants to be bad. For the most part I think it succeeded. There are so many hilarious scenes such as Andy trying to get rid of an erection after refusing to have sex with Trish. Or the scene where Andy goes with his Trish's daughter to a sexual education class where he ends up asking more questions than anybody else. Ah and we must not forget the soon to be classic chest waxing sequence 'Ooh! Como se llama!' An interesting little note about that scene; the actor Steve Carell actually did wax his belly and the pain shown is real. Of course they only did one take but it was still a very brave thing to do on his part.

Actually since we're talking about Steve Carell, I'd like to say that he has now risen on my list of respected comedians which is sort of odd since I didn't even know who he was prior to seeing this film. I was just so impressed by his writing, acting and timing that I now really want to keep an eye out for his future roles. This man has talent it The 40 Year Old Virgin proves that.

To be honest I had doubts about this film but early word was positive and I knew it was something I was eventually going to see. I'm glad that I did too since it's probably one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time and it doubles as something you feel is worth watching. It's not simply a series of sex gags lumped together rather it's a series of sex gags entwined with a very worthwhile character and a truly touching romance. Now excuse me while I go puke my guts out; I can't believe I just wrote that...

My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=virgin


I loved this film, Independent film-making at its best. The cinematography , pacing, rhythm , and acting were perfectly in sync. Fred Carpenters best work to date! The movie is well written with lots of plot twists that take you to a great ending. It moves well and keeps you involved. Being a photographer, I was most impressed with the cinematography. the lighting creates mood and a beauty that is usually found in a much bigger budget film. This gave the actors a great canvas to start from, to work their magic. And that is just what they did! Great performances from all the actors and each one was well cast in their roles. As I said in the beginning, the is a wonderful film, and one of Fred Carpenters best movies. You will love it.


Saw this used DVD cheap, and got it for a chuckle. I had recently also found 'The Octagon' on DVD and bought that one to reminisce, having seen it in the theatre as a pre-teen, and loving it at the time. The problem now with 'going back' to these American karate films, is that I've since then seen so many Hong Kong and Thai action films, in which the fight scenes are long, fast and jaw-dropping. I'm thinking particularly of fights like Jackie and Benny 'The Jet' at the end of 'Dragons Forever', or Tony Jaa's circular-stairwell fight from 'The Protector'. The Hollywood kung-fu offerings are just not 'filmed right', and even make someone of certified skill, such as Chuck, look awkward at times. And what's worse than a fight going into slow motion? Then you know it looked crappy at normal speed, so they slowed it down for effect. It really highlights how ridiculous an opponent looks as they stand and just WAIT to get kicked in the chest.

Poor Chuck, he just has no intensity in this film, nor does he project any righteous menace. Compare that to his former co-star Bruce Lee, who had charm and attitude to burn. When Bruce would square off against some opponent(s) you could nearly see the air around him crackling with what was about to happen. In 'Breaker, Breaker' Chuck seemed to accidentally be kicking people, with complete nonchalance. When the judge comes to see him in jail, and sentence him to death, Chuck is staring off with a sad look, and I thought 'OK...he's doing that 'third eye' focus thing and is going to grab the judge by the throat and get out of this', but he does nothing except look up with a doe-eyed stare. Terrible. And while the DVD case gives you hope, listing a run time of 1 hour, 5 minutes, it's actually 1 hour, 25 minutes, so there's 20 more minutes of viewing pain.

For great fight action, go watch Jackie Chan in the first 'Police Story'....the fight in the shopping mall at the end is pure gold......


Last night I got to see an early preview screener of Prozac Nation. Because I love everything that Christina Ricci does I was very excited at first, but as the movie continued I started to wonder where it was going. Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title. In my opinion this movie moved too fast, and it was way too dramatic. I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character. Christina Ricci's performance was fantastic as always but Jessica Lange stood out throughout the whole movie, and I believe this movie's success will be all because of her and Christina Ricci. I would rate this 4 out of 10 and I would suggest you rent this one or read the books by Elizabeth Wurtzel they are good and definitely worth checking out.


Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about 'Trigger Man', I know I am trying to. - MERK


Okay, here's what I think about Jack Frost. I looked at the morphing box for the VHS tape and I thought to myself, this looks interesting. I rent it and I take it home. Boy was I right, it is interesting. They put serial killer's spirits in dreams, in walking corpses and inside every day machines. But this has got to be the most unique place to put the spirit of a serial killer. Inside the body of a snowman. I liked all the friendly snowman images littering the landscape, the pot holder, the snow globe, etc. I like the actor who played Jack, he put some fun into a killer really not seen since FREDDY KRUGGER. That's right, I said it. FREDDY KRUGGER. It's that level of 'cool'. I wish some of the puppet effects were better, the mouth movements could have matched better. But I chalk that up to a small budget. The cast does a great job, there are some great one liners and scares to make any hardcore horror fan jump. All and all, a great story, good effects, great dialog and a great cast. I give JACK FROST...9 STARS


It all begins with a series of thefts of seemingly unrelated objects in a hostel for students on Hickory Road, London. Concerned for her sister, who is the housekeeper there, Miss Lemon asks Hercule Poirot to look into the matter. He agrees, but soon the stakes get higher when a girl, who had admitted that she was responsible for most (not all) of the thefts, is found murdered.

'Hickory Dickory Dock' is a solid brain exercise, without being as mind-numbingly complicated as 'One, Two, Buckle My Shoe'. Murder, theft and diamond smuggling are the crimes involved, and the final twist that ties everything together is revealed only in the last 2 minutes! The characters are interesting, particularly the psychology student Colin McNabb and the mysterious American girl Sally Finch, Inspector Japp has his funny moments (in perhaps the closest this series has come to 'toilet humor'), and Miss Lemon gets a more integral part to the story than usual. (***)


This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre.


First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's 'The French Connection', is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seconds', and with his 'French Connection 2' it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography.


Should you wish to see the worst film ever made, look no further. Some wretched movies are watchable because they are unintentionally funny. Alas, American Movie has no wit at all, no unintentional humor, just obscenities thought by its director to be laughable.

For those who liked this film, I suggest you watch Kevin Smith's 'Clerks,' similar in tone. In Clerks you will find creativity, wit, and enjoyment -- all on a shoestring budget. It should make you forget this hideous effort.


This is actually a brilliant movie. The story is grotesque, but the actors are brilliant. Especially the performance of Mads Mikkelsen as Svend, is magnificent. It's a simple story about two guys with an urge to make it on their own, but it unfolds to a strange and absurd story, with a lot of people accidentally getting killed and served up as chicken steaks. If only more people understood danish... This could be a great candidate for an English version. It is also worth mentioning Ole Thestrup, who always delivers that extra twist to the plot, with his slightly mad character Holger. I can only recommend this movie to the danish audience. Also take a look at Adams Æbler (2005), a movie by Anders Thomas Jensen, also with Mads Mikkelsen accompanied by a well playing Ulrich Thomsen.


I'm big into acting, writing, and directing, but not famous yet. My friends and I frequently rent bad movies, just for fun and a good laugh, but when we went to the local Family Video and found a movie called Biker Zombies From Detroit, we knew it was gonna be the worst movie of all time and it was! Biker Zombies From Detroit has no script! They can say they do have one, but they're liars! There was a 4 minute scene of just two guys riffing about women and sexuality, and you could tell it was improvised. And if they're going to improv, it should be at least decent, but it wasn't, and you could tell by the two actors screwing up lines and saying stuff that didn't even make sense.

To give you an idea of how terrible and retarded this movie is, here's the beginning: a girl flicks a guy off, he punches her in the face and beats her up, then rapes her. Then we see zombies who attack and they both turn into zombies.

This is the beginning of the movie! Not to mention the lead zombie voice over that carries through the whole movie, trying to be sinister and thought provoking, but sounding like Marylin Manson having a conniption fit.

Worst movie ever. Bottom line, folks. But watch it if you like movies with no script, no plot, bad acting, bad editing, bad music, and over 100 F words used in the movie.

If this can hit video stores, my future films are gonna win Oscars.


Well, what's wrong with the title 'Separate Lies' (accused elsewhere of not being 'exciting'). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called 'Separate Lives', which are alluded to here.)

But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an 'in-your-face' hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out.

American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe.

Maybe we're not so 'exciting' over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public.


Besides the comments on the technical merits of the production, or lack thereof, the acting is absolutely horrible. What is really scary about this movie is that I actually OWN a copy of it, of course, it was in a bargain bin and had been renamed as 'Dark Harvest 2', and after having seen it, I can understand why it was in the bargain bin - they should have paid me for taking it out of their inventory.

The majority of the movie, if you want to call it that, is spent by a frantic father running around a corn field maze looking for his daughters because he has a premonition that something is going to happen to them. I suspect that the camera that the girls were playing with at the beginning of the film was probably one of the production cameras for this fiasco. In the maze, he runs into the ghost of some children, which are poorly done, and the movie goes horribly south from there.

I can see why they renamed this movie, otherwise, they would never have gotten rid of them. Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever had to sit through, and it wasn't worth the $2 I spent on it.


I saw this film at the Galway Film Fleadh the year it won best short film. I have to say that i thought the direction was fantastic and the performances from the key cast members were very memorable. Both of the main cast are definitely names to watch out for.

The final shot over the cliff was mesmerizing and i for one would like to find myself there if i was waiting for the end of the world to happen. The kiss was definitely a great payoff, done with great enthusiasm's!!

I can only assume that the film was shot on film, and i have heard that the DOP won an award at the Tribeca Film Festival for his work on this film and i must say.... well deserved.

I would recommend this film to anyone who was a teenager in the 1980s. It brought back some great memories and some scary ones.


The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her 'doe-eyed' expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make!


Swinging bachelor Matthau, a successful dentist, is stringing along his blond mistress Hawn, having told her that he's a married man with three kids. After she attempts suicide Matthau decides to get responsible and marry the girl. Worried that she's going to be a 'homebreaker', bright eyed Hawn wants to meet his wife and explain everything to her. Matthau employs his faithful nurse Bergman to act his wife and that's when things really get complicated.

A farcical comedy with irresistible leads quite often hits the mark but isn't for one second believable. The script asks us to believe that us men are such one-dimensional turds that it's truly beyond belief. But maybe this comedy doesn't need to be analyzed too deeply, just sit back and enjoy the ever so funny Matthau, the ever so charming Bergman and débutant Hawn, who here basically created the dumb-blond girl role.


A truly muddled incomprehensible mess. Most things in the film look more or less like 1987, but then there are futuristic things just thrown in, like the policeman's ray gun. And that car! The director seemed to be in love with colored lights. The only really notable performance was the girl who played Valerie, but since there was no cast listing, I don't know which actress that was. This one is worth missing. Grade: F


One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****


(Caution: several spoilers)

Someday, somewhere, there's going to be a post-apocalyptic movie made that doesn't stink. Unfortunately, THE POSTMAN is not that movie, though I have to give it credit for trying.

Kevin Costner plays somebody credited only as 'the Postman.' He's not actually a postman, just a wanderer with a mule in the wasteland of a western America devastated by some unspecified catastrophe. He trades with isolated villages by performing Shakespeare. Suddenly a pack of bandits called the Holnists, the self-declared warlords of the West, descend upon a village that Costner's visiting, and their evil leader Gen. Bethlehem (Will Patton) drafts Costner. After much misery and numerous efforts to break Costner's spirit, he escapes, thus ending a lengthy section of the movie that could have been told better in a three-minute flashback.

We now finally get to the major premise: the escaped Costner finds an abandoned mail truck and delivers the letters to the nearest town, hoping to get some food under pretense of being a postman. A number of the village people led by young Ford (Larenz Tate) want to get in on this postman act, which does not sit well with Bethlehem and his bandits, and Costner finds himself the unwitting and unwilling leader of a band of postmen at war with the Holnists.

The idea of The Postmen versus The Bad Guys is not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Holnists depend for their livelihood on the fact that the villages they prey on are isolated from one another; the Holnists can destroy any one village, but could not stand against all their victims united. To unite, the villages must communicate with one another, and a working mail system would thus be a big step toward putting the Holnists out of business. So it really makes a lot of sense that Bethlehem would get medieval on our heroic mail carriers. Unfortunately, Bethlehem's eventual defeat is not the result of the villages uniting against him, but instead your old standby cliche, the one-on-one brawl between him and Costner. Nor is there even any real attempt by the communities to use the mail to work together to solve their problems; all the mail seems to be the standard 'Hi, Aunt Debbie' stuff played for maximum sentimental value.

THE POSTMAN is one of the most predictable movies, shot for shot, that I have ever seen. Now, I don't purposely try to ruin movies for myself by straining to figure out what's going to happen next. But here we're talking about the kind of predictability that requires no effort; I just knew what was going to happen next whether or not I wanted to know. After a lion is prominently showcased eating people, a Holnist bandit seeking the escaped Costner ventures into the bushes after a noise, and we are then 'shocked' when the lion eats him. A bunch of unoffending villagers are rounded up and shot by a firing squad, and one of the villagers sings out some Famous Last Words right before being shot, to my immense lack of surprise. A covered statue is unveiled to show exactly what everyone knew was going to be there: Costner bending to pick up a letter from a cutesy kid we saw earlier in the movie. A man tells Bethlehem that no sir, you can't just take my wife; Bethlehem runs the unsuspecting sod through, though he is the only person in the theater who is unsuspecting.

But it is rank, cloying sentimentality that really undoes THE POSTMAN. Olivia Williams, playing Costner's lover Abby, is worst served. She pours her heart into the material and gives her very best effort to make it sound natural and sincere. She tries so hard, it's heart-breaking. But nobody could ever have made the lines 'I have a gift for you, Postman . . . You give out hope like it's candy in your pocket' sound like anything but the syrupy pap that they are. Another example is the scene where a mounted Costner thunders past a little boy, ignoring his proffered letter, only to turn around, stare at him for what seems like five minutes, and then thunder back to pick up the letter. Why didn't Costner just pick it up the first time? No real reason; it's just an artifice that tries and fails to give us a feeling of elation by dashing the kid's hopes and then restoring them.

Schmaltz and predictability unite at the end as the statue of the Postman is revealed. I sat thinking, 'Please don't tell me they're going to show the statue and then cut back to the scene with the cutesy kid. Surely that is too saccharine, too obvious for even this movie.' Then, alas, the music swelled and we did indeed cut back to the dreaded little boy smiling as his letter to his maiden aunt is whisked away, and I held my head in my hands and thought, 'Somebody shoot me.' It felt like having thirty pounds of apple pie rammed down my throat.

Gen. Bethlehem is a more humanized villain than normal. Your standard-issue post-apocalyptic villain is the meanest, toughest S.O.B. in the valley. Bethlehem is shown to be a little nothing of a man inside, who tries to make himself feel important by beating up on others. Although some menace is thereby sacrificed, Bethlehem is credible in a way most villains aren't. Unfortunately, Will Patton overacts. And although we are told early on that Bethlehem utterly destroyed his last challenger in five seconds of hand-to-hand combat, Bethlehem's actual fighting skills shown at the end of the movie are absolutely ludicrous.

The acting is otherwise pretty good. Costner has done better, but his Razzie was an overreaction. As mentioned, Olivia Williams is very impressive. Larenz Tate as Ford does a sincere and credible job. James Newton Howard's score is competent, though short of the epic standards the movie was going for. But it's not enough to save this film.

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


This movie is surprisingly good. The ninja fighting sequences were unbelievable. I haven't see all Sho Kosugi's films but this is probably the best of those I've seen. Probably the most impressive fighting sequence was at the beginning when ninja killed about 20 people, that was one of the most impressive ninja fighting sequences I've ever seen. Another good fighting sequence was at a cops funeral where the ninja provide more people to bury. The last fight was also very impressive. Also I kinda liked the soundtrack of this movie. The story was good enough for a ninja-movie, actually it was kinda different from other ninja-movies. So if you are a fan of ninja-movies, you'll probably like this one.


This movie started out confusing and grew into one of the best movies I have seen... The acting was utterly superb and when I wasn't drying my tears I enjoyed Meryl Streep, who's performance was extraordinary. The movie deals with the hardships of a distant family coping with a mother who develops terminal cancer. The movie was very difficult to watch and heartbreaking. The soundtrack fits this movie to a tee. Brava Bette Midler!! Out of 5 stars, I give this one 4 1/2.


There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help!


This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.

Rating: ***** out of *****


I rented Zero Day from the local video store last week. I had never heard of the film and I had my reservations about it. Just from looking at the box I knew the film was an Indie film and therefore the quality was going to be less than a mainstream film.

I can tell you that after I finished watching Zero Day I immediately started it from the beginning again. The film was clearly following the basic outline of what happened at Columbine High School of April of 1999, but what struck me was how believable the two lead actors were. My first time through watching this film I wasn't entirely sure if what I was watching were actual tapes left behind by the shooters at Columbine. In the back of my mind I knew what I was watching could not be real but at the same time the acting was so convincing you had to keep giving your head a shake.

Is the film disturbing? Absolutely! Are you going to see things that will make you question the merit of the film? Probably. I think what most people will find disturbing is they will actually have feelings for the two lead characters, Calvin and Andre (Played by Cal Robertson and Andre Keuck). Why is that problematic for some people? Calvin and Andre are planning a massacre at their high school. I know for myself, I felt an immense sadness for Andre and Calvin. I had empathy for them because their lives had come to such a horrific point. They had fallen so deeply through cracks that they had begun a journey down a road which could have been stopped, if only people around them had taken notice to their plight.

Zero Day is a phenomenal film. It gives you an up close and personal look to events that most of us will only ever see the conclusion to on the news. It leaves you thinking about the lives involved. And it leaves you perplexed how people get to this point. A week after seeing this film, I still think about it.

Those of you who have not seen Zero Day please keep in mind the following: The film is an independent with little to no budget and the film is shot on camcorders. The material in the film is disturbing. This is not mainstream Hollywood and there is no happy ending.

But if you can put all that aside, Zero Day is a film that will stick with you and just maybe help you to open your eyes a little.


First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.


Storyline: The film spanning 4-odd hours covers in adequate details the happenings at the Kargil sector near the LOC in 1999 when the Pakistani infiltrators had crossed the LOC and had entered deep into the Indian territory and the Indian Retaliation. To know more about the story, I would suggest readers to read the news-items pertaining to Kargil.

Comment: If one is looking for a formula story in this movie, then one can be sure that it is absent. LOC is a story of Pure sacrifice, patriotism, courage and lots and lots of bullets and Blood. The movie hall where I saw this film was full of whistles and cheers when the Film shows Indian Bravery. Movie audience seemed similar to Audiences like in an India vs Pak cricket match.

Watch the movie as a tribute to the Army's sacrifice and for the characterization of the real-life war heroes (4 PVC honoured heroes) who have sacrificed their lives so that we could see this day. The movie has made a brilliant portrayal of the Army who have battled all odds in rough weather conditions. The film's negatives are that it is too stretched and the songs are extremely boring.


Saw the move while in Paris in May 2006 ... I was debating between that and mission impossible...I am very glad I choose OSS 117 not only because it was funny but might as well watch a FRench movie while in France. I had a great time... would recommend it. It is important to have some understanding the French society of Today to really enjoy the humor of this movie ... cannot wait for the DVD to come out... I don't know how some of the 'jeu De mots' 'puns' would be translated in English I 'll certainly buy it when it is out! P.S. I saw on 'BRice de Nice' which is a movie starring Dujardin that all kids were talking about in France. this movie is a comedy but sillier than one can imagine...in comparing both movies I have to say that Dujardin did a good job in OSS 117.


This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.

On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as 'Old Charlie', who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.

Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.


I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!


There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?


This is the best of the films (so far) that Christopher Guest has created using his very talented ensemble cast. Previously, they'd made the excellent WAITING FOR GUFFMAN and following BEST IN SHOW, they made the very enjoyable A MIGHTY WIND. As for their latest, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, the less said the better.

The film appears to be a documentary about dog shows and several contestants in particular. You follow these few chosen dogs from pre-show preparations all the way to the big night where one of them is chosen best in show at the fictitious 'Mayflower Kennel Club'. However, none of these people are real dog show enthusiasts but talent improvisational actors that parody many of the common types of people you meet in the dog show world. Amazingly, even though the characters are rather outlandish, there is a lot of truth to the personalities they are parodying--as decades ago I had some experience with dog shows and this is a VERY cutthroat group of people! My favorites of the dog owners were the incredibly high-pressure and tense yuppie couple who just exuded anger and volatility. I also loved the openly gay couple, as they were terribly funny and clever. However, the best performance probably wasn't from any of the couples but from Fred Willard who played the world's stupidest and least talented announcer in human history. His comments were uniformly inane and often betrayed his as an incredibly stupid person--how he got to be the announcer for such a prestigious show is anyone's guess. The other contestants featured were also quite funny--the high-priced professional poodle handler and its rich owner, the country boy and his hound as well as Winkie's 'parents' who could barely scrape together enough to make it to the show.

Despite the improvised style of film making, the pieces all fit together wonderfully and told a very funny and compelling story--one that is NOT for dog owners only. Exceptional acting made this one of the best comedies of the last decade. Clever and consistently funny.

By the way, try to find this on DVD as the extras were actually worth seeing. While a bit painful to watch, I loved seeing Harlan Pepper and his beach ball collection in particular!


'Erendira' is a film from Mexico that is rarely talked about. The film only exists in a low quality VHS format. It's a shame this film hasn't been given a DVD release. 'Erendira' is stunning and gorgeous with its magic-realist images. 'Erendira' is based on a short story from the novel '100 Years of Solitude'. Erendira is constantly daydreaming and accidentally burns down her grandma's house. Her evil grandma, played by Irene Papas, forces her into prostitution to pay for the damages. The whole town gets a piece of Erendira, so to speak. Although the subject matter sounds harsh, the film doesn't exploit sexuality. It's done in a mature artistic manner. The film also has some amazing costumes. Some of the more surreal aspects of the film that stand out the most, are the origami birds that morph into real birds, and a golden orange with a diamond in the center. Erendira is an amazing film, that even manages to throw in humor. This is definitely a film that deserves a special DVD release. As they'd say in espanol, 'Es muy muy bien !!! Excellente!


I was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age (eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to actually scream.

All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly 'HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CHILDEN?' They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER AGAIN1!


Making this short and to the point. This movie was great! I loved it! I actually picked this up at a Hollywood Video for 3 bucks on VHS and watched it about 5 times in the last couple weeks. I'm a big Bogart fan and I just latched onto this movie. I thought the song was funny and now have it as a ring tone on my phone. Robert Sacchi is great and pulls off a good Bogart. His nose is a little big, his voice is a Bogart-Columbo mix, and he does a few things that are awkward but otherwise, he was fantastic and this film was wonderful. No one can be a perfect Bogart but he was great. Remember, Sam Marlow is a fan of Bogart and isn't going to do everything he did. He mentions a lot of other movies and does some things that were never part of the real Bogart's character's. But, it's so funny and hilarious and has a great cast, including some beautiful women. Watch it and have fun!


If 1977's 'Exorcist II: The Heretic' did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought 'Carrie' had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, 'Medusa' plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****


...here comes the Romeo Division to change the paradigm.

Let me just say that I was BLOWN AWAY by this short film. I saw it, randomly, when I was in Boston at a film festival and I have thanked god for it every day since. I really, truly believe I was part of a happening, like reading a Tarantino script before any else did or seeing the first screening of Mean Streets.

I am not sure what festival the short is headed to next or what the creative team has on tap for future products, but I so hope I can be there for it.

Again, a truly incredible piece of film making.