This movie should be shown to film school students as an example of what NOT to do. The original kicked some major tire squealing butt, this horrible disaster breaks the cardinal rule of Bruckheimer films, which is: we all know they suck, but they have great action. This film has NO ACTION. This film is BORING. Where are the cars? Where are the chases? Where's the tension? Where's the suspense? Where's the rush? Where!!?? This isn't really a movie at all, it's a bad commercial. 50 cars in 24 hours? That is wrong. They have 3 days to steal them, the ad is wrong. How bad is that? The leads acting is stiff, wooden and forced. The villain, the cop, the others...who cares. They utter their pointless lines, they serve the illogical plot. They slog through it the best they can as the music video director says 'don't worry we'll make a lot of fast cuts and no one will notice how bad the film is' or 'we'll fix it with lots of loud music' The 'script' isn't really a script at all, it's more like a list of cliches with an ending that is a total ripoff of: -------Warning - possible spoiler------ 5------4-----3-----2-----1------ The Fugitive. The biggest crime of all is the underuse of Vinnie Jones, man....this is the baddest, coolest mofo since Jules in Pulp Fiction. And what do they do!? They make him a mute who's hardly in the film! Make Vinnie the main villain and he could have saved the film. How could they have been so dumb? How? How? Why? The original film is very entertaining with a cool trick at the end that gets the driver away. The original has a great 40 minute chase that delivers! Go find the original. Or if you're craving some real car chase action go rent RONIN. The chases in Ronin raised the bar by which all other car chases will now be judged. Bruckheimer and Cage had all that money, all those resources, all that experience, and they can't even come close to matching a film made 25 years ago for $250,000? How can that be? You feel like you got ripped off after seeing this movie. Where I was once excited to see Coyote Ugly, Remember the Titans and Pearl Harbor, now I say: God help us all.


First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.

The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.

The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.

It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay  who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person  who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.

Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.

There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good  brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that  very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively.


The original GRUDGE (the original American remake) surprisingly pulled off just about everything you could do right with a ghost flick. It had suspense, dark and moody atmosphere, some good jolts, and some genuinely creepy images. THE GRUDGE 2 attempts all of these techniques, but ultimately fails, only showing us the same old stuff we saw in the first movie, as well as a messy storyline constantly switching from Tokyo to California. It begins in Tokyo with some schoolgirls who wander into the house, now heavily blocked by one strip of police tape. One of them comes face to face with a similar wide-eyed ghost girl while trapped in a closet. She gets out, screaming frantically and they all run out of there. Next we cut to America where Karen's sister is sent by their mother to Japan to find and bring her back home. We eventually find ourselves following a very familiar concept involving a curious guy and girl investigating the history of a mysterious house. We cut back and forth to the girls from the beginning who are disappearing one by one as well as a young boy hearing strange noises in the next apartment at night, all leading up to a very unsatisfying ending. The 'scare' scenes are dull and ineffective. Like The Ring 2, avoid this god awful sequel...


This movie is hilarious. The laughs never stop. Every scene is packed to the limit with hilarious comedy. Chris Farley is a comic genius, and Spade plays his character to a tee. Farley was one of the best slap stick comics ever, and in this movie(as with all his movies) we see how much time and energy he devoted to portraying his character the way he saw fit. 'Tommy Boy' is an excellent example of a comedy, it always makes me laugh, no matter how many times I have seen it before.


Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought 'Eh, what the hell' and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.

So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking 'Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!' Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow


Of the three remakes of this plot, I like them all, I have all three on VHS and in addition have a copy of this one on DVD. There is just enough variation in the scripts to make all three entertaining and re-watchable. In addition has any other film been remade three times with such all star casts in each? Of course the main stars in this one are great, but the supporting actors are also superb. I particularly like William Tracy as Pepi. He was such a scene stealer that I have searched to find other movies he is in. He appeared in many, but most are not available. As the other comments, I also say - buy this one.


Everything about this film was terrible. To start with this film had a pretty good cast and I find it impossible to make such a great cast into the biggest disaster to the gangster film genre ever. The sound track was like one of a very bad slap stick comedy. It had this music through the whole film and it started to get quite irritating.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOURSELF WITH THIS DISASTER YOU WILL ONLY BE HURT


I loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss it!!


Good lord.

I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the 'what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?' defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.

This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has 'I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice' syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of 'God' (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.

If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.


I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.

I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.

After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.

The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.

There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.

Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video.


I have watched this movie at least 30 times, maybe more, and each time I watch it I am drawn into the movie and back to 1963! The Movie takes me on a nostalgic vacation every time I watch it.

I think the important thing to say here is I was 15 in 1963 and I can remember 'before President Kennedy was shot and before the Beetles came.' I can feel myself saying something like, 'I carried a watermelon.' and then realizing just how stupid that was! Jennifer Grey plays Frances 'Baby' Houseman in Dirty Dancing. Baby is going to start college in the Fall. She goes to Kellerman's for vacation with her family (mom, Dad and sister Lisa).

One of the staff dancers, Penny (played by Cynthia Rhodes) gets pregnant by another staff person (one of the college boys played by Max Cantor) and has a chance to get an abortion but it is on a night that her and Johnny (Patrick Swayze) are scheduled to dance at a nearby hotel.

Thus, the need for a fill-in dancer for Penny. Johnny is persuaded by Penny and his cousin Billy (Neal Jones) that he can teach Baby to do the dance in time for the show. Baby learning the dance steps with Penny and Johnny are wonderful scenes!

Baby's father (Doctor Jake Houseman played by Jerry Orbach) comes to Penny's rescue when the abortion is done wrong. Dirty Dancing brought back to me this time in history when girls got pregnant and had abortions in back rooms by butchers. Around this time (1963) many girls actually died from this type of abortion - but there were not many choices for a girl then.

Lonnie Price plays a great conceited grandson (Neil Kellerman) to Jack Weston's Max Kellerman. Jane Brucker does a great job as Baby's annoying sister Lisa Houseman.

The music is great and the dancing is wonderful! The 'dirty dancers' are absolutely wonderful and very sexy - I can feel Baby's astonishment when she first sees them dancing and says, 'Where'd they learn to do that?'.

Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze are just perfect together in their respective roles. Patrick's song, 'She's Like The Wind' brings tears to my eyes each time I hear/watch it in this movie.

The movie ends on an up note, but leaves you wanting to know what happens next in Baby's and Johnny's lives. Dirty Dancing gives something new each time it is watched - It mesmerizes the watcher with nostalgia, a feeling of wanting it to be 1963 again.


I love this show. My girlfriend was gonna get an abortion until we both watched Wonder Showzen one night. Luckily, she killed herself before the baby was born. Though technically I think it was considered a murder-suicide.

My first thoughts upon seeing Wonder Showzen? Now I know what God watches when He jerks off all the time.

Wonder Showzen is to television what a toaster in the bathtub is to my self-esteem.

You know how George W. Bush makes speaking gaffes all the time? Tyler wouldn't. Tyler's good. Tyler cuts his nails. He's Tyler. He's good. Tyyyllerrr...


This is definitely one of the better documentaries I have seen looking at family relationships and marriage. I saw 'capturing the friedmans' a short while ago and have to admit I thought this was better.

The story is not an incredibly shocking one, but it is a great examination of trapped personalities and relational cold war. Block deftly guides the viewer through diaries, family footage and after-the-fact interviews; his interview style is sensitive and probing, and his insights are clear and measured.

51 Birch Street is a great examination of personalities and relationships over 40-50 years of social change, the social fallout, and potential for redemption.


I've watched a bunch of episodes of Cold Case since its premiered (especially now that it immediately follows The Amazing Race, but this was one of the best instances of writing and acting I've seen from the house of Bruckheimer. The casting, especially of the younger officers, was spot on, and the script and editing, the soundtrack, and the acting made this episode a tour d'force. If I were the producers I would submit this episode for Emmy consideration. It amazing how complete a portrait was made of Coop and Jimmy within the confines of s 48 minute episode; that takes a lot of talented people doing their best. I hope there's is advance warning of when this episode is repeated, because I'm sure I'll notice a lot that I did not notice the first time around.


(the description of the mood of the movie may be considered as a spoiler - because there is not much action in fact)

Great one...

Is it for my peculiar interest for the dystopias and utopias? Is it for the atmosphere of the movie. Or is there some more magic? If yes, it is for sure the utmost human one...

This film is, no doubt, extremely artistic/artificial (depends on taste). I can imagine most of the people who hate to watch slow movies (and those of Tsai Ming Liang (who I didn't enjoy other times) are one of the slowest that I know), suffering during the movie. Yes, people are unable to slow down and to let time pass - and to watch it without feeling they waste it. One can take this piece as torture or as a therapy...

The topic at the surface? The lack of communication - even if we live in rabbit cages - one next to each other - but not really together? People are tired, sick of something and unable to describe it - just don't want to meet, touch, talk, confront the others... like if they had disappeared. The big block of flats looks void and the rain falling constantly evokes the strange melancholy inside. And sometimes it must be something abnormal, unexpected, some unwanted decay as a hole in the floor of concrete - that allows us to reach each other.

One of the possible ways to look at it is this: Don't survey the inner world of the characters - consider the whole movie-space to be inside of yourself. And ask - why is it there? Where could these depressive states and moods come form? Is there a place for them, they don't have a right to be here? And search for the answers (if you need them) among the walls and halls of the block - instead of inside hardly transparent mind of a man.

The key to understand is not-to-understand - to let a movie borrow us - as a subject of study - inside itself - and at the end safely return us to our more colorful and 'normal' looking reality.

Then, maybe, you will reach - like me - the feeling of real, possible, non-pathetic hope, that in core we are still humans... and this state of mind can help one much to live in this world.


I absolutely LOVED this Soap. It has been one of my favorite. Will highly recommend :)... I just love Brazilian soaps, they deal with real life events. I'm really sad that the soap ended but I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, please see it. I loved the characters, the plot and how things turned out in the end for the villains. The only thing I would have changed is the end for Xica and her long life love. I can't wait to see it again and highly recommend it. Xica has been by far, the best soap I have ever seen. Forget everything else :)GO XICA.. Hope you all like it as well.


My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again.


Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.

But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.

McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.

Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.

Grade: D/D-


I expected a good movie. What I got was an even better movie. The chemistry between James and Smith is just incredible. Glad to see him in a major motion picture for once!

The movie works, because the actors play their parts perfectly. Will Smith is fantastic with his never ending charm; Kevin James is hilarious, and Eva Mendes...well, let's just say she plays that bitch/sweet/annoying role to the best of her ability.

What I loved about the movie was the fact that Will Smith didn't even have to try to be lovable. He just was!! The 'date doctor' had all the right moves, said everything in the most perfect of ways, and never ever went over the top.

The funny parts are hilarious...and the cute, romantic parts are unforgettable.

I totally recommend this movie. And no, it is not a chick flick.


'Nat' (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend 'IQ' (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry 'Scooter' (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.

The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.

The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.

History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.

If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day.


It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.


Amnesiac women who remove their clothes at the drop of a hat (or a blouse?) are about the only stand-out points in a film that is otherwise slow and aimless. Although the basic premise of the story offers a wealth of possibilities, they are never developed to any satisfying degree, and exposition is almost non-existent. A large proportion of the film is mere wanderings through the corridors of a multi-storied clinic/hospital. The overall effect is bleak and sterile, a la THX-1138.


This film is a wonderfully simplistic work. Enjoyable from start to end it is both sad yet uplifting at the same time. The performances from Miranda Otto (oh, how she deserves so much more recognition!)and George del Hoya are beautiful and yet almost painful to watch, as the two tortured souls come to understand each other. The supporting cast of workers at the Dead Letter Office are wonderful bit-parts in them selves, as is Alice's long-suffering boyfriend, who I couldn't help but feel slightly sorry for. There's one particular scene I could watch over and over (and I have!), it's such a shame that films like these don't get recognition, and therefore bring them futher into the public eye for more people to enjoy. I cried, I laughed and I sighed. I'd recommend this film to anyone.


Okay. As you can see this is one of my favorite if not favorite films. This is a character drama which is absolutely hilarious. The main character is a business man who is stuck in a 'same thing, different day' mentality. He sees a woman looking melancholy out a window of a dance studio from his train everyday and wonders about her and decides to find out more about her. He decides to join the dance class only to find out she is not the instructor. From there he bonds with four other dancers and learns to enjoy dancing as well as finding out about the mysterious woman.

There is no gratuitous (or any) sex involved, just how a small group of people learn how friendships are formed and developed.

This film was remade with Richard Gere and Jennifer Lopez and the new one while appealing is nowhere as enjoyable as the original. The movie never made it big in America because it was not eligible for the Oscars since it was broadcast on television in Japan (movies cannot be released on TV or they are disqualified for Oscar nominations). It did win numerous awards in Japan for best film, cast, director etc for their 'Oscar' awards.


It's interesting to see what shape Pierce Brosnan's career was in before Bond arrived on the scene. In this 'tense' thriller, Pierce Brosnan plays the gentle Patrick, who works leading ghetto kids on 'confidence courses'. He romances a woman, who has a bog-standard mop-top mid-90s kid called Eric. The woman's drunken ex-husband soon arrives on the scene and begins to mess with Pierce.

At one stage Pierce is innocently making 'vegeburgers'. The husband enters. Pierce resumes making vegeburgers. The husband then assaults Pierce. Little chunks of half-eaten vegeburger call fall from Pierce's mouth. The fight abruptly ends without showing the outcome. This is as good as the film gets.


I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about 'A Christmas Visitor'. The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.


The people at ABC forgot to do their biographical research... so many scenes were just plain wrong! The actor playing JPII was very rigid, there was no personality there. It is very very obvious that this movie was on the bottom of the programming totem poll, the move is so low budget. The script is terrible. Conversations like: 'You must follow the rules' 'No, the people are starving.' Lame. Plus, the movie was jumping like crazy from event to event in order to fit it into the two hours. Terrible! A better use of your time would be to watch a PBS documentary on JPII. Also, CBS put out a miniseries on JPII that is better than ABC by far. JPII was a wonderful man, and it bothers me to think that my grandkids might get a hold of this ABC movie and think that THAT is what he was really like!


Some people might call 'Paulie' a kids' movie, but I wish to assert that it's more than that. Probably more than anything else, this movie successfully goes to great lengths to show the plight of immigrants in the United States - topical given the recent debates. Portraying a parrot telling a Russian immigrant janitor (Tony Shalhoub) of how he searched America for his original owners, the movie tells several stories. There's the elderly woman (Gena Rowlands) whom he befriends, then a Mexican immigrant (Cheech Marin), and others.

All in all, it's a very well done movie. I usually don't expect much from these sorts of movies, but this one is a treat. I certainly recommend it. Also starring Jay Mohr, Buddy Hackett, Bruce Davison, Hallie Eisenberg and Trini Alvarado.


This is the fifth von Trier film I have seen. I believe that he is the only director to whom I have given such a high score on all his movies. Four of them, The Element of Crime, Europa, Breaking the Waves, and Dancer in the Dark, I have given a 10, and one, The Idiots, I have given a 9 (and I have been reconsidering whether to give it a 10 since I first saw it, although I'd like to see it once more before I do). He has been chided for calling himself one of the best working directors. I tend to agree with him. I cannot blame him for being arrogant when he has made such great films. In 50 years, when von Trier retires, he will be looked upon as the pre-eminent film artist from Europe (perhaps from the planet), and there will be classes taught in his name. He simply is the Bergman or Fellini of our time. It is too bad the critics are too intrigued with themselves to notice this.

About Europa itself, I'll admit that it was confusing and that its narrative did not seem strong. I think that's the point. This film was obviously meant to represent a nightmare, or the subconscious at some level. This is absolutely clear from the framing of the film: Max von Sydow's narration. We are hypnotized, or von Trier is hypnotized, and this is our/his subconscious mind. I'm inclined to lean more towards his mind, since the degradation of Europe concerns me, an American, very little. This framing is also clear if you have seen The Element of Crime, an even more brilliant film than this (although I am disputing that in my mind; what Europa needs more than anything is a proper release on DVD, hopefully Criterion again, with theatrical aspect ratio and remastered sound and picture; then, I am fairly sure, this film would seem as great as any of von Trier's other films). In The Element of Crime, the film begins with a hypnotist, whom we actually see on screen this time, is hypnotizing Fisher, a European detective who wants to get to the root of his mental anguish. The first words of that film are 'Fantasy is okay, but my job is to keep you on track.' And whenever Fisher, the narrator, gets off track, the hypnotist does chastize him and tells him to get back on with the story. He even laughs when a character is given a really silly and trite line. Something along the lines of, 'Do you understand the difference between good and evil?' The hypnotist laughs and says, 'Now, Fisher, she didn't really say that, did she?'

So the key to interpreting Europa, almost a sequel of sorts to The Element of Crime, is that we are deep in our/von Trier's subconscious, and the symbols there are to be interpreted within ourselves and will likely be different for everyone. What does the train itself symbolize? Consider it internally, and only then discuss it externally. Europa is a great film, a masterpiece. I was never bored by it, even though I watched it at 3 am. The perfect time to watch, actually, since it works in dream logic.


Minor spoilers

First I must say how rare and charming it is to find a movie with such basic messages in it: nuclear war will inevitably destroy all of civilization, and women are for making babies. It is absolutely incredible how well formulated the plot is to hit in these two points, as with a golden hammer. Essentially, everything about this movie annoyed me. The casual sexism, the character whose sole trait was coming from Texas, the mysterious choice of dying Mars orange, and of course the flawed science of it all. Then the martian woman screaming as if she had just noticed that she was blind? What was that? However, I will give it credit. The fifties did spit out some sillier things. But not much...


In reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.

But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.

Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade.

One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.

But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.

Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.

I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.

I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.


Right this moment I am watching this movie on TV here in Tokyo. Beautiful scenery, beautiful sets of biblical proportions, beautiful costumes, beautiful color, beautiful Gina. Great climactic scene when God destroys the Sheban idol and a lot more with de Millean thunderbolts at the moment when Yul and Gina are about to consummate their love. Yul does a halfway decent job of delivering his lines, though he sounds a lot like Yul delivering his lines as Ramses or Taras Bulba. George Sanders sounds like George Sanders playing George Sanders. Given the limited range of acting she is asked to display in this role, Gina does a good job, though by the time the movie ends, she is completely converted into a demure remorseful lass and looks likes she might be playing in a biography of Mother Teresa. I guess thunderbolts will do that to you, but it is almost breathtaking how quickly she jettisons her own beliefs for her new religion. The supporting players are mostly awful, lacking credible emotion and timing. The usual big battle scenes, what passed for lascivious dances in 1959, and an orchestra blasting out plenty of trumpet calls behind a huge chorus singing lots of 'Ah's', but none of it quite of topnotch Hollywood quality. The final swordfight between Brynner and Sanders is at the laughingly low skill level of a junior high school play. The film is one big piece of eye candy but not much more.


Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.

The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.


I have to agree with all the previous commenter's--this is simply the best of all frothy comedies, with Bardot as sexy as Marilyn Monroe ever was, and definitely with a prettier face (maybe there's less mystique, but look how Marilyn paid for that.) I don't think I've ever seen such a succulent-looking female on screen, so perfect that even a gay man like me got excited by it--and not just for purely aesthetic reasons (if the idiot evangelicals really want to do their 'convert-a-queer' number, they are really going to need to up their standards, as no church mice need apply here...)Her breasts, the rest of her figure, her adorable voice, the hilarious way she shakes as she walks across a room...only to arrive in front of a man, breasts literally pointed as if in exquisite confrontation...

I think Boyer is one of the greatest leading men in all of film history. No one played opposite more great female stars than did he: Garbo, Dietrich, K. Hepburn, Colbert, and here Bardot, among many others. And he was also in 'Fanny' with Leslie Caron, and had small parts in 'How to Steal a Million' with A. Hepburn, as well as being in the Deneuve movie 'The April Fools' (although not opposite her.) The only thing I could disagree with in remarks is that even the loud, obnoxious music over the opening credits is appropriate--I mean, Bardot is not meant to be subtle on top of everything else, and her essential loudness (I don't mean her voice) is part of her irresistible and, one might even say, exemplary charm.

Vidal is thoroughly handsome, even if pouty Brigitte says toward the beginning 'I don't know why I am in love with you, you're not even handsome.'

Dear, dear Bardot! Truly one of the wonders of the 20th century, not to mention the joy that she is still with us, when so many of the truly characterful are passing away so fast, in all her eccentric glory.


Quite simply, Goldeneye is the single greatest N64 game to date. The learning curve is just about perfect, and you'll still be playing it with your friends months on, as the multiplayer mode is nothing short of exceptional.

The system for acquiring cheats for once requires some degree of skill, rather than simply knowing which buttons to press, and the challenge of Aztec on 00 agent level is astonishing.

All in all - it's the best game I've ever played on the N64


This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called 'The Eye 2' except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch 'The Eye' with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If 'The Eye' remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.


This movie is actually worse than most movies I've ever suffered through, and I've suffered through a lot. Absolute nonsense. It's got terrible, forced dialogue; pointless plot developments; really drawn out 'spooky imagery' scenes, which look more like a high school remedial art project than a horror movie; 5/10 at best attractive women; long, boring sex scenes involving said women (forget what you know about virgins! especially ones with lop- sided fake breasts); muttered, difficult to understand speech from some of the characters; and they actually used the masks from Killer Klowns from Outer Space during a masturbation scene, which should be a saving grace because that movie was pretty funny, but it isn't. Veden Fell is the lamest bad guy in the history of film.

Absolutely give this one a miss.


What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.


This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale and great humor, however other then that it's nothing special. All the characters are pretty cool, and the film is entertaining throughout, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. Jackie and Wai-Man Chan had fantastic chemistry together, and are both very funny!, and i thought the main opponent looked really menacing!, however the dubbing was simply terrible!. The character development is above average for this sort of thing!, and the main fight is simply fantastic!, plus some of the bumps Jackie takes in this one are harsh!. There is a lot of really silly and goofy humor in this, but it amused me, and the ending is hilarious!, plus all the characters are quite likable. It's pretty cheap looking but generally very well made, and while it does not have the amount of fighting you would expect from a Jackie Chan flick, it does enough to keep you watching, plus one of my favorite moments in this film is when Jackie (Dragon) and Wai-Man Chan(Tiger), are playing around with a rifle and it goes off!. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale, and great humor, however other then that it's nothing great, still it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Jackie Chan does a good job here with solid camera work, fantastic angles and keeping the film at a fast pace for the most part. The Acting is very good!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, hilarious, as usual does some crazy stunts, had fantastic chemistry with Wai-Man Chan, kicked that ass, and played this wonderful cocky character, he was amazing!, i just wished they would stop dubbing him!. (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Wai-Man Chan is funny as Jackie's best friend, i really liked him, he is also a very good martial artist. Rest of the cast do OK i guess. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5


This movie reminds me of Harry Potter - not the style but the marketing strategy. There may be part 2 , part three...until one day the product life cycle finishs, of course on the condition that the part one has a commercial success. so many things seems to be hidden and thus the story looks quite incomplete. the action design is boring. set design is ok but not fine. perhaps Edison Chen would be a big star one day. He really looks charming even on big screen. The most impressive is still Anthony Wong. 4/10


A bondage, humiliation, S&M show, and not much else. The plot is flat, really just a banal setup for the stylishly depraved set-pieces. The host of the aforementioned show, a silly little man who spouts drivel while prancing around the stage in dresses, was almost as painfully distracting as the attempts at artful editing. The dream-like ending felt tacked on. To the film's credit though, Aya Sugimoto was fairly convincing as the tortured lead. Flower and Snake has been compared with Eyes Wide Shut but aside from some minor surface similarities, Kubrick's is easily the more layered, artistic, and atmospheric picture.


While this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.

Amongst the many inconsistencies:

* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests.

* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures.

* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer.

* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says 'I see you know Psalm 65' - she corrects him 'that's Psalm 67' - they're both wrong.

* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway.

* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.

I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).

On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.

I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.

Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke.


I was around 7 when I saw this movie first. It wasn't so special then,but a few years later I saw it again and that time it made fun,a lot:)

I think the best parts of the film are: Yeti's body language and the 'special effects ' also.

If you wanna watch this movie ,don't wait for a Hollywood made blockbuster,even this film was made from approx. 1000 dollars :)

I've a copy of it.Movie and video version as well(But I don't think it had been ever shown in cinemas)

Watch it,enjoy it!!!Yeti for ever!!!


I had mixed feelings for 'Les Valseuses' (1974) written and directed by Bertrand Blier when I started watching it but I ended up liking it. I would not call it vulgar ('Dumb and Dumber' is vulgar, 'The Sweetest Thing' is both vulgar and unforgivably stupid); I would call it shocking and offensive. I can understand why many viewers, especially, the females would not like or even hate it. It is the epitome of misogyny (or so it seems), and the way two antiheroes treat every woman they'd meet seems unspeakable. But the more I think of it the more I realize that it somehow comes off as a delightful little gem. I am fascinated how Blier was able to get away with it. The movie is very entertaining and highly enjoyable: it is well written, the acting by all is first - class, and the music is sweet and melancholic. Actually, when I think of it, two buddies had done something good to the women they came across to: they prepared a woman in the train (the lovely, docile blonde Brigitte Fossey who started her movie career with one of the most impressive debuts in René Clément's 'Forbidden Games'(1952) at age 6) for the meeting with her husband whom she had not seen for two months; they found a man who was finally able to get a frigid Marie-Ange (Miou-Miou) exited and satisfied; they enlightened and educated young and very willing Isabelle Huppert (in one of her early screen appearances.) Their encounter with Jeanne Moreau elevates this comedy to the tragic level. In short, I am not sure I'd like to meet Gérard Depardieu's Jean-Claude and Patrick Dewaere's Pierrot in real life and invite them over for dinner but I had a good time watching the movie and two hours almost flew - it was never boring.


I first caught up with Jennifer years ago while out of town when it showed up on TV in the middle of the night; I fell asleep before it ended but it stuck with me until I had to track it down. Its appeal is that, though there's not a lot to it, it weaves an intriguing atmosphere, and because Ida Lupino and Howard Duff (real life man-and-wife at the time) display an alluring, low-key chemistry. Lupino plays a woman engaged to house-sit a vast California estate whose previous caretaker -- Jennifer -- up and disappeared. (Shades of Jack Nicholson in the Shining, although in this instance it's not Lupino who goes, or went, mad). Duff is the guy in town who manages the estate's finances and takes a shine to Lupino, who decides to play hard to get. She becomes more and more involved, not to say obsessed, with what happened to her predecessor in the old dark house full of descending stairways and locked cellars. The atmospherics and the romantic byplay are by far the best part of the movie, as viewers are likely to find the resolution a bit of a letdown -- there's just not that much to it (except a little frisson at the tail end that anticipates Brian De Palma's filmic codas). But it's well done, and, again, it sticks with you. Extra added attraction: this is the film that introduced the song 'Angel Eyes,' which would become part of the standard repertoire of Ol' Blue Eyes.


Well, for this abomination of a film, I wasn't expecting anything good. I find Steve Carell annoying, and Bruce Almighty was pretty good but there is absolutely no reason for it to have a sequel. Somehow, this film was even lower than my expectations, even when I didn't have any.

Does anyone remember the Disney movie Noah with Tony Danza? Well, let's just say that Evan Almighty completely ripped it off in way too many ways for the movie to remain justifiable. Actually Evan Almighty was had the EXACT same plot outline as Noah, with the exception of a few technicalities, it was nothing but a carbon copy of a far-superior movie that was actually FUNNY.

Another thing, did anyone get sick of Wanda Sykes' stupid, unfunny, redundant, one-liners that were literally in every single scene? It was completely ridiculous and just dragged the movie down more and more.

Despite the fact that I basically had already seen the film ten years earlier(Noah), Evan Almighty has to be the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I figured out the entire movie from beginning to end within the first five minutes and eventually realized that it was ripping off Noah left and right.

In conclusion, if you're a little bit unsure of whether or not you want to see Evan Almighty, and are already sick of Jonah Hill playing the same role in every single movie he's in, liked Bruce Almighty, and don't want to see a predictable, dry, unfunny movie with Steve Carell trying to act like Jim Carrey, then please, don't see this piece of garbage.


This movie is not that interesting, except for the first ten minutes. The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park. Then it inexplicably slows down, loses focus and starts resembling a traditional French movie only to regain focus in the end with the love relation between Antoine (Depardieu) and Cécile (Deneuve). In the middle there are too many sidelines and loose ends in the story, several threads started are not ended.

*******SPOILERS AHEAD The main story is the relation between Antoine and Cécile. He has been loyal to her after his relation with her many years ago, despite her remarrying and setting up home in Morocco. As builder he now rebuilds his own life and recovers hers by taking the mask of Cécile's marriage. Having accomplished this, he is buried after a freak accident (literally) and becomes a comatose. He wakes only after she has burned their old picture as indication that they've reconciled with the past and can properly start their lives again together. *******END OF SPOILERS

It remains unclear what vision this director wants us to see us because there are so many other stories here: Illegal immigrants want to enter Europe, there are frequent radio broadcasts about the overthrow of Iraq's former regime. Cécile's child is bisexual and is bitten by dogs (loyalty) once he meets his boyfriend, whereas the girl he lives with seems to be sick (of that?). Her sister is traditional Islamic, and enters a relation with Cécile's husband. It portrays Morocco as unnecessary backward, despite all the building there is a strange colonial vision shining through that almost glorifies the past. It portrays Islam as backward and prone to extremism, which may sometimes be true, but certainly not in general. In the end it can all best be described as adding some couleur locale and l'art pour l'art.

Deneuve and Depardieu are great. With this material they are so familiar they are able to spin something extra in every scene: lifting an eyebrow, body language, radiating pride, awkward behavior. The movie itself is disappointing and only confirming the limited role of French cinema in the world nowadays. With some notable exceptions of course.


Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!

Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.


Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.

I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).

It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.

This is a film that stays with you after viewing.


This film is a load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!


I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than 'Love's Abiding Joy.' The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.

I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.

If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies!


An okay film, with a fine leading lady, but a terrible leading man. Stephan Jenkins, who plays the husband, is a truly bad actor. Joyce Hyser, on the other hand, is the movie's saving grace. She's the best actor of the bunch.

NOTE* the first comment, by the fellow who heaped praise upon the movie (and, according to his IMDB.com account, has only written ONE review -- and guess for what movie?) is obviously a plant. While the movie is nicely shot, it's by no means subtle or great or whatever other hypobolic descriptions the reviewer used.

'Art of Revenge' is a fair movie, but it's a big tease. It offers up all manner of sexual situations but never goes through with it. Like watching a Skin Flick on Cinemax, but with all the 'naughty bits' edited out.

The film, as a whole, is a bit unfocused and the ending, and much of the third act, is really a big mess. There's a twist ending, of course, since every movie nowadays finds it necessary to have a twist ending.

A 4 out of 10.


A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.

Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.

End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.


My brother brought this movie home from the rental store and I remember expecting it to be such a bore. I think the title especially put me off. I can't ever remember starting a movie with such low expectations and being so completely won over. I watched the movie twice before I let my brother take it back to the store. It is very infrequent that a movie speaks to me the way this one did. I was completely caught up in Ruby's situation as she tries to make her way through her life. The bad thing about this movie is that it seems to end so quickly. I could have kept watching for hours. Another downside is that I have been unsatisfied with everything Ashley Judd has done since. She is so perfect in this movie. This film is easily in my top ten favorites of all time.


'The Bourne Ultimatum' begins recklessly mid-chase and in pulse-pounding fashion explodes from there as Jason Bourne (Matt Damon, absolutely superb) tracks down the masterminds behind the CIA black-ops that turned him into the perfect killer in a final attempt to learn his true identity. A devastatingly icy David Strathairn as the 'man behind the curtain' is added to the returning cast of regulars including Joan Allen (excellent) and Julia Stiles (non-existent).

Like the second entry in the series, I wished Paul Greengrass' shaky hand-held camera would go static at least for the few minutes of downtime. However, that being said, it's a perfect way to capture the tense, claustrophobic feel of the intimate hand-to-hand-combat scenes and works equally well in the chase scenes which are mostly on foot and across rooftops with the occasional big car pile-up. Part of the fun of the Bourne series is the constant globe-hopping and manipulation of technology and communications that seem to defy the laws of physics and current capabilities. The Bourne films seem to exist in some sort of gritty hyper-reality that is full of technological-based magic. It makes no sense that everyone seems to be just in the right place at the right time, but I'll be damned if it isn't a blast to watch them get there.

With the absence of the emotive and involving Franka Potente, the writers attempt to create some emotional connection between Damon and Stiles, but she is so blank-faced an actress it never really leads to anything. Still, this can be forgiven, for unlike the 'Identity' and the 'Supremacy', this 'Ultimatum' reveals all and we finally learn the truth about Bourne's past. It's an entertaining and satisfying conclusion to the series, and if they have any good sense, and Damon gets his wish, this will be the perfect end to it.


Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito), a 'crypto-zoologist' (fancy term for one of those self-deluded losers who likes to study extremely rare - read: nonexistent - animals) and his crew of hunters manage to trap a Chupacabra, a big, scaly, elusive fast-moving beast. To get it to the mainland, they smuggle it on a Grecian cruise ship and some idiots open up the crate containing it despite being told specifically not to. I guess the strange growling noises coming from inside weren't a good enough deterrent either. The monster then does the monster thang; running around biting chunks out of various passengers until the ship's captain (John Rhys-Davies), a square-jawed special agent pretending to be an insurance salesman for some reason (Dylan Neal), a squeaky-voiced blonde Tai Bo instructor (Chelan Simmons), a bunch of guys with machine guns and others try to stop it. The main victims (who I think are supposed to be the comic relief but it's hard to tell) are an old rich bitch (Paula Shaw) with a yippy terrier and a snobby effete gold-digger (David Millbern). Apparently the monster can be knocked out with a single tranquilizer dart, but can live through dozens of bullet hits. The Chupacabra design is acceptable (though unoriginal) but the rest of the movie is devoid of suspense, surprise or interest. A boring Sci-Fi Channel 'original' movie; they've made dozens of movies just like this with nearly interchangeable characters and plots, but with slight alterations on the creature. Enough already!


I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.


Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.

I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.

Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.

Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.

While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.

Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.

All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself.


This is a spin off of Pulp Fiction. I thought that it would be good for a few decent laughs. Well it turns out that this movie really was terrible. The whole plot doesn't follow on the Pulp Fiction plot. It turns to other movie like Forrest Gump and more. Some laughs came out of this movie, but all and all it totally took 90 minutes of my life away from me. If you are thinking of renting this movie, please don't it will waste 90 minutes of your life. Reconsider renting this and go on and find a movie that actually makes sense. Please if there is a Plump Fiction 2, I will definitely not go on and rent the sequel. Just giving a heads up for those out there.


This movie is plain fun.I has nothing to do with the original America Pie, but it is fun to watch.

Another try, but better than Band camp and The naked mile, at least funnier.

Just after first five minutes i was laughing my ass out, so I decided to call my friend and we would watch it together.We had a few beers and we had fun.

You will not find any deep message in this movie, but it's worth watching.

So, lay back and just enjoy.


This is a more interesting than usual porn movie, because it is a fantasy adventure.The production values are high and the acting is(believe it or not) pretty good,especially Jenna Jameson.It`s also in widescreen which helps,it gives a feeling of a real motion picture and NOT a porn movie.But,of course it is a porn and a really good one with nice costumes,fine atmosphere and scenery.And by the way,the sex IS hot.

Watch out for this one...


This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.


As anyone old enough knows, South Africa long suffered under the vile, racist oppression of apartheid, which completely subjugated the black population. One of the most famous anti-apartheid activists was Steve Biko, who was murdered in jail. Following the murder, reporter Donald Woods sought to get Biko's message out to the world.

In 'Cry Freedom', Woods (Kevin Kline) befriends Biko (Denzel Washington) before the latter is arrested on trumped up charges. When Woods attempts to spread Biko's word, he and his family begin living under threat of attack, and they are finally forced to flee the country. The last scene gut-wrenchingly shows police firing on protesters.

As one of two movies (along with 'A World Apart') that helped galvanize the anti-apartheid movement, 'Cry Freedom' stands out as possibly the best ever work for all involved.


This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally 'Howard The Duck' is no longer the goose.


Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is 'hilarious' and 'rivoting' but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.


Come on now. How did all of these talented actors/actresses end up in this mess? Was it some sort of blackmail/lost bet situation? Vinnie, you are a muscle man. Be what you were born to be.

The hot tub scene? The Scrabble scene? I was expecting to hear the 'needle dragging over the record' sound at any point.

And what was up with him carrying around the priceless Dickens manuscript with him? Let's see, I'm drunk at a bar, why not pull out the priceless Dickens manuscript? I'm going to meet some questionable thugs down on the edge of the Thames, why not take my priceless Dickens manuscript?

Crapola.

Terrible. Avoid.


A group of friends decide to take a camping trip into the desert-and find themselves stalked and murdered by a mysterious killer in a black pick-up truck.'Mirage' is obviously inspired by Spielberg's 'Duel' and Craven's 'The Hills Have Eyes'.Still this slasher yarn offers plenty of nasty violence and gore.The film's gory highlight is a sequence involving a man having his arm and leg chained together around a tree and then having his limbs dismembered when the chain is pulled by a truck.There is also a little bit of suspense and some exciting stalk-and-slash sequences.The acting is pretty lame and the script is quite weak,but the film is fast-paced and shocking.B.G.Steers who plays the villain is fairly threatening.The desert locations provide some atmosphere and the gore is rather strong.Overall,if you like low-budget horror films give this one a look.8 out of 10.


Why take a show that millions of us watched and loved as children and make a complete joke of it? They ask why Hollywood isn't making the money it used to. Because they put out garbage and pay actors huge amounts of money to be garbage men and ask us to pay $10 to see their garbage. The TV show was what it was, good people in bad situations where the good IL' boys come out on top. It wasn't Gone with the Wind but it was fun. This movie is garbage! Hollywood can't come up with anything original so they take something that was good and ruin it for some $$$$. I only hope that this movie makes 10x's less than it cost to make. The only one's to have any fun with this crap are the guys who got to drive the General Lee. The audience is the victim.

Don't see it, watch the reruns of the TV show instead. They still hold up 20 years later.


It's sad to view this film now that we know how the ANC got shafted by international capitalism. Biko died for nothing much. Woods achieved little. Yes, outright apartheid was abolished, but all the apparatus of power was reserved by the minority whites, leaving the ANC government more or less impotent. As Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine, in the talks between the black and white leaderships 'the deKlerk government had a twofold strategy. First drawing on the ascendant Washington Consensus that there was no only one way to run an economy, it portrayed key sectors of economic decision making --- such as trade policy and the central bank --- as 'technical' or 'adminsitrative'. Then it used a wide range of new policy tools --- international trade agreements, innovations in constitutional law and structural adjustment programs --- to hand control of those power centres to supposedly impartial experts, economists and officials from the IMF, the World Bank, the GATT and the National Party --- anyone except the liberation fighters from the ANC.' The statistical results are horrifying, with not much change accomplished, and AIDS flourishing. Viewing Cry Freedom in this light is deeply ironic --- actually tragic. The ANC has transformed itself from being the solution to being the primary problem.


I happened to catch this on TV, and wanted to watch because I remembered the Spin magazine article upon which the movie is based. I was very disappointed. First, if James Belushi is the lead actor in a movie, it should be a sign that it's not exactly an A-list production. Gregory Hines was a world class dancer, but sadly not a great actor.

In fact, all of the acting in this film is either flat or hammy, which can only be blamed on the director, who is this film's weakest link. Charles Carner seemed to be trying to ape Oliver Stone's 'JFK' in portraying the alleged conspiracy to cover up the 'real' child murderer(s), but without the benefit of a good script, an A-list cast or, it must be said, the talent. It just doesn't work.

It's a shame that such a worthy topic for a film did not get better treatment.


If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the 'F' word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.


I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding.

If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.


The opening credits are pure poetry and I have watched it several times. It had a corny 20's adventure feel to it. Of course Kathy is gorgeous, but that voice! Did she realize this was a talkie. One word--voice coach. Great film for chronic insomnia (along with a bottle of scotch).


In general I like dinosaur movies but this one is pure crap. No script, no dialogues, no acting. And the brave colonel Rance trying to show he is tough and so curving his mouth resembles as a twin brother the stupid Proctor from the Police Academy. So this was a complete waste of time (fortunately not waste of money as I saw the film on TV). And I really cannot understand 7 people who graded this sh*t 10. They must've joked. My advice, if you see this title run from it!


This movie just might make you cooooo. The film was WELL worth the dark trip to town. Betty (Renee Zellweger)is the lone 'acceptable' soap groupie out there. Her character is SO charming and SO convincing that you find yourself in forgiveness over her being such a goof. I might even allow myself to get lost in Bettys' adorable fantasy, if it weren't for the fact that Dr. Ravell's real name is George... And speak of the devil; 'looker' Greg Kinnear fills his role VERY well. While Charlie (Morgan Freeman) makes you wish for his wish to come true, Wesley (Chris Rock) makes you want to tie him to a chair. And Rosa(Tia Texada)takes you back to those luminous grade-school friendships. The sheriff encourages you to feed him donuts and loose his name. The remainder of the cast fits well. Never one to do the same movie twice, Nurse Betty is the exception. One of these long, cold, needing to smile about something winter days.


Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.

Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.

Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.

MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.

Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.

And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.

From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.

And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.

The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).

I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.

Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.

The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the £10k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.

It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.

What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.

Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.


I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie.

By the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP speedy.. so the quality is not so good..)

If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK?

Ot's a great movie and i agree that is a movie to be always watched.

Waldemar Braz - Sao Paulo/Brazil


This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the 'go-getter' with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one.


The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.


Citizen Kane....The Godfather Part II....D'Urville Martin's Dolemite. This is the single greatest piece of celluloid ever created and unleashed upon humanity. Rudy Ray Moore, in a role that transcends Academy Awards stars as Dolemite, the baddest cat in the universe. He clearly does not take any jive from no turkey (I myself am unfortunately a turkey) and proves it with his powers of rapping, pimping, and karate chopping. This is blaxploitation at its absolute finest, a shining example of the genre with its low budget, continuity errors, and hatred for rat-soup eating honkey expletive expletive. The true Godfather of Rap (not this new Ali nonsense) Moore is something of a juxtaposition of acting technique; somehow managing to be the most charismatic awful actor of the 1970's, and thats saying something. This one is HIGHLY recommended folks, if not for the one-liners alone.


What did I just watch? I spent 90 minutes of my precious life watching one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. The concept of a serial killer clown is actually quite scary seeing is there are a lot of people who are afraid of clowns....but having it be a 300 pound nursery rhyme reciting killer clown makes a mockery of the genre. I still am wondering how the character Mark wasn't able to run away from the Clown...he's 300 pounds, he's gotta get tired eventually. The whole ending made me get up and literally say aloud 'What did I just watch?' Apparently Brandon is Denise's cousin.... and they had got it on near the middle of the movie meaning he had sex with his cousin.....yeah that's something people want so see *shudders*.

Another thing I found hilariously stupid was the opening scene where the clown stabs a woman and she says 'What did you do?' Well bytch, what do you think he just did? The last thing that was stupidly funny was one second the main character was slapping the hitch-hiker and calling her a c*nt and then 5 minutes later saying violence isn't helping anything....did the writer of the script give the line to the wrong guy? None of this movie makes sense anyway.

The movie was more or less a dumb low budget porno which I got sucked into buying (all 3.99)and got no entertainment out of it besides the sex scenes. I'm surprised the fat clown didn't join the orgy, would have fit right in. I hoped the movie would have some entertainment value like other B movies might have, but I was wrong. This is a moronic piece of garbage that's not even worth watching.

1 out of 10


i was 9 when i first saw this on TV. on a Friday night. i remember the full page ad in the TV guide with the picture of the Rex. amazing how some things stick in your mind after 30 years. Anyway if your a kid who likes monster movies this one is entertaining enough especially with boone and Keats raging at each other. Special effects are no harryhausen but its worth the hour and a half if you find it somewhere on late night TV. Haven't seen it in a few years for some reason these classics fade from cable TV. If you do catch it on late night don't be too critical just grab some snacks and enjoy it. it might be cheesy but i thought it was a lot better than the kong remake that came out in the theaters a year before.


This line is a good summary of this movie. If you have read it, and watched 20 minutes of the movie, you will know exactly how the rest of the movie is going to behave. Some researcher named Surgei (pronounced SirGay) are searching for hell in the underworld of Moscow. However he seems to have disappeared, and his friend Oven follows with a team to search after him. Could they have find a more boring plot? Some bad actors looking after an old man in the underground. The acting is very bad, the romance really feels pointless and untrue, often there is no good reason for the way the characters are acting, nothing is scary and most of all: there's not happening anything interesting in the whole, entire movie. They just walk, asking some gang leaders and other guys about the way, walk some more, complain some, finds the old man, and then they run, and finally finds the way out of the underground.

The only thing that provides me from giving this movie the lowest of all ratings is the atmosphere. If you just want to see a movie for that, this may be a good choice. It's dark, and it's mystical and murky. However, the rest of the movie is really dull. You just sit there all the time, waiting for the movie to begin or something to happening. It's actually happening some things, but they are not very well performed. For example, i didn't really notice when one of the characters disappeared, and I swear I wasn't sleeping or something. And I don't understand what's dangerous with these children... They just run around in the underground together, scratching it walls with sticks (I suppose it is meant to be scary in some way).

Just watch this movie if you are in immediate need of some murky atmospheres.


This incredibly formulaic flick from the 'Walker, Texas Ranger' squad contains some of the most unbelievable scenes ever witnessed within a TV movie. In addition, one can pretty much predict the outcome from the get-go. However, it's a fun little movie that gets the job done: it entertains. That's all it was meant to do and it does so. The stunts and explosions are fun and exciting and the plot isn't half bad. The acting is also decent, which isn't much of a surprise, because everyone knows that Chuck Norris is no Steven Seagal. If you're a fan of the genre (and of 'Walker, Texas Ranger'), you will definitely love this. If not, then don't waste your time. 8/10


I'm absolutely disgusted this movie isn't being sold. All who love this movie should email Disney and increase the demand for it. They'd eventually have to sell it then. I'd buy copies for everybody I know. Everything and everybody in this movie did a good job, and I haven't figured out why Disney hasn't put this movie on DVD or on VHS in rental stores. At least I haven't seen any copies. This is a wicked good movie and should be seen by all. The kids in the new generation don't get to see it and I think they should. It should at least be put back on the Channel. This movie doesn't deserve a cheap download. It deserves the real thing. I'm emailing them now. This movie WILL be on DVD.