Actually I feel like having my review be that one word. My friend, whose opinions I almost always trust about movies, especially horror movies, warned me NOT to rent this no matter how tempted or bored or desperate to see a new horror movie I was, because it was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately I haven't talked to him in a while, and I was in a hurry to pick a movie, and thought, 'what the heck, how bad could it be?' WHY don't I learn? What was I thinking? Did I think it would magically turn into a better movie while sitting there on the shelf for years waiting to be rented?

The 'plot' concerns a guy who edits films for some company. His boss is a jerk. The guy who had the job before him went insane and blew himself up in the pre-credits sequence, so for some reason the boss picks nerdy 'Ed' for the special project of editing 'Loose Limbs' splatter movies. He never says what Ed is supposed to edit, but I guess that doesn't matter. Ed is upset by some of the clips, working on them up at this house all by himself that the boss has decided to relocate him to for no apparent reason. He asks his boss if he can stop or do another project, but his boss doesn't care. He starts to slowly go insane, supposedly from watching the clips, and wants to carry out the gory murders in real life. Or has he been this way all along? Please note that I am making this plot sound much more deep, interesting, and coherent than it actually is.

We don't care about the characters at all, or have any sympathy for them, or even hate the bad guys. The plot is really, really boring and predictable. The splatter isn't even that gruesome or creative-this is NOT worth renting just to see the gore, because what there is isn't interesting or original.

All the 'tributes' to Sam Raimi just come off like really bad ripoffs, and no-one in the movie is anywhere near good looking enough as Bruce Campbell, so you can't distract yourself with that. I think an 'Evil Dead II-Dead by Dawn' poster is only prominently displayed in one scene in the hopes that Sam Raimi will be flattered and not consider any sort of legal action. A trained chimp could have written a better screenplay. Every time I hear lines like 'Are we having fun...yet?' (which even Bride of Re-Animator couldn't pull off without making me wince) I start feeling like picking up some sort of deadly weapon myself. Characters just appear out of nowhere with no explanation, wandering in only to get killed. This might be OK if the movie was even remotely amusing or entertaining, but it was all I could do to keep from fast-forwarding through most of it. Fortunately I chose to pay some bills and balance my checkbook at the same time the movie was playing. Trust me, it did not require my full attention-I still felt like 90+ minutes of my life were wasted just by having this on in the background.

Don't watch it, no matter HOW tempted you are-you'll hate yourself for wasting your money. Horror fans will be completely disgusted by how incompetent it is. Even those who haven't seen too many splatter movies should stay away, as there are so many movies out there you could rent that are much more well worth your while. If you want something brainless, low-budget and fun, rent something else. Complete waste of time with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Be smarter than I was at the time and don't be fooled by the 'Warning-Not For the Faint of Heart' on the box. You have been warned!


I thought this movie did a down right good job. It wasn't as creative or original as the first, but who was expecting it to be. It was a whole lotta fun. the more i think about it the more i like it, and when it comes out on DVD I'm going to pay the money for it very proudly, every last cent. Sharon Stone is great, she always is, even if her movie is horrible(Catwoman), but this movie isn't, this is one of those movies that will be underrated for its lifetime, and it will probably become a classic in like 20 yrs. Don't wait for it to be a classic, watch it now and enjoy it. Don't expect a masterpiece, or something thats gripping and soul touching, just allow yourself to get out of your life and get yourself involved in theirs.

All in all, this movie is entertaining and i recommend people who haven't seen it see it, because what the critics and box office say doesn't always count, see it for yourself, you never know, you might just enjoy it. I tip my hat to this movie

8/10


This is a good enough movie and you probably won't be disappointed, but it again has Roy Scheider, right after he did 'French Connection', playing a cop with the name 'Buddy'. They also use the same too-memorable wheelman from 'Bullitt'. At first you'll think you've seen the car chase before if you have his face still in your memory. The car chase is a great one, but as in many car movie scenes, it has some technical and editing errors. Check 'Puppet on a Chain' and 'French Connection II' for some other good, long, intense chases.


I'd heard about this movie, but didn't see it until my daughter, who saw it on a flight to Australia, told me it was a great movie. I was interested in seeing whether Rupert Grint, away from Harry Potter, was showing the promise you see in the Potter movies. I wasn't disappointed. He's become a fine actor, showing a range in Driving Lessons from a shy boy being beaten down by an over-bearing obsessive mother, to a young man finding himself to be worthy of his own, and other's, esteem. Going over lines from plays and poetry with his aging-actress employer, it's obvious that he's ready to take on much more complex roles in films and the stage. But the jewel of this movie was Julie Walters. I'd seen her previously in the Potter movies, Billy Elliott and Calendar Girls, and loved her. In Driving Lessons, as she does lines from poetry and Shakespeare, I was awed by her timing, command of the language, and body language. I'm hoping it was make-up/costuming, as she portrays an older woman with osteoporosis, though no mention of it is made in the movie-- as a nurse, I can say that she did this perfectly, portraying a woman on the brink of old-age, but clinging to the sparkling past that she reveled in. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, and I wish I'd seen it in a theatre first-- but I doubt it ever played anywhere here in Albuquerque. We miss out on so many of these types of movies here.


Anemic comedy-drama, an unhappy, seemingly rushed affair featuring Cher as a woebegone housewife who slowly makes friends with the hit-man who's been hired to kill her by her husband. Chazz Palminteri, as the talkative hired gun, adapted the screenplay from his own play, with stagy set-ups and back-and-forth dialogue that quickly tires the eye and ear. An air of gloom hangs over the entire project, and director Paul Mazursky can't get Cher out of her perpetual funk (she's listless). Despite all the top talent (including Robert De Niro as one of the producers), 'Faithful' is fraudulent, with no substance to the story and characters who rarely come to life. *1/2 from ****


Like another poster mentioned Ch. 56 (a local Boston TV station) showed this multiple times over the years on Saturday afternoons. They paired it with the first sequel 'Return of the Ginat Majin'.

Now I haven't seen it since then...but it never left me. Aside from the atrocious dubbing and faded color this was a pretty good fantasy. Technically it isn't horror...until the statue comes to life at the end. It's just about a village ruled over by an evil man. There's a giant stone statue there that the villagers keep praying to to help them...to no avail. But things go too far, the statute comes to life and destroys the bad guys...but then it starts going after the good guys too! Well-done with some cool special effects at the end (LOVED how he got rid of the main bad guy). Also there was an enchanted forest worked in which was kind of interesting too.

No masterpiece but an unusual combo fantasy/horror film. Worth catching--but not if it's the dubbed print.


'Where to begin, where to begin . . ?(Savannah in the episode 'Gimme Shelter')' To disabuse: Fox/Viacom does not, at this point in time, have any intention of releasing THE show on DVD. But be not downhearted! That you are reading this reveals that the magic lingers fifteen years on . . . And small wonder. This was post-modern television, a valiant attempt to visualize magical realism. 'neath the blue patina, charm, and brio were scripts bursting with symbolism and metaphor, music that actually interacted with scenes! And, ultimately, an attempt, however doomed, to recapture one's belief in innocence, to reclaim Eden, as it were . . . It's potency is perhaps best attested to by the fact that even as we, umm, type, a book is being written about the show wherein will be found the thoughts, fancies, and reminiscences of many of the show's actors, writers, directors, and producers. In the meanwhiles . . . anyone desirous of once again visiting the end of the world and reacquainting themselves with Seamus, Sheriff Cody, Savannah, et al . . . should not hesitate to contact me, I may be able to make you a copy. 'Angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees . . .'


Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.

This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.

In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.

Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.

The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.

A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.

But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.

So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.


Not one of the better pokemon movies.

Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.

Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.

The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.

Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.

Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.


For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.

Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.

I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode  with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue  and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him 'clicking' in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.

Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes  those not written by McGovern  mistreated the character.

So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show  making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding  you'll feel that 'click' once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.

The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes  the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma  rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.

It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives  one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.

But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going  reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we  as an audience  don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.

I can't say that this ruined the show for me  it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like 'To Be A Somebody'  an episode that was just as 'issuey', but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.

Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department  which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).

Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?)  he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.

So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people.


This is a film that on the surface would seem to be all about J.Edgar Hoover giving himself a a big pat on the back for fighting Klansmen,going after Indian killers, hunting the famous gangsters of the 1930's, fighting Nazi's in the US and South America during world war 2 and Commies in New York during the early 1950's. Of course in 1959 we did not know about Mr. Hoover's obsession for keeping secret files on honest Americans, bugging people like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, but worst of all,his secret love affair with his deputy director,Clyde Tolson( If you want to know more about that subject, I suggest seeing the film Citizen Cohn). Hoover aside, This story of a life in the FBI as told by Jimmy Stewart makes for a decent, but dated film. Vera Miles as his devoted wife is also good. But Jimmy is the movie. As much as Hoover controlled production and always made sure the FBI was seen without fault, Jimmy Stewart gave the film a human side,quite an achievement considering Hoover was always looking over his shoulder. The background score is also pleasant. I have read recent online articles suggesting that this is a forgotten film. Jimmy Stewart was one of the greatest film stars of all time and none of his films should be forgotten. TCM was the last network to show it a long time ago and I hope they show it again.


A childless couple (Brooke Adams, Jeff Hayenga) go to a doctor (James Karen) to try to conceive. It works but Adams slowly becomes aware that there's something seriously wrong with the baby...

Pretty interesting idea is thoroughly done in by a lousy script--the basic idea is OK but becomes screamingly predictable towards the end. I saw every 'twist' coming. The direction is poor--he seems to have no idea how to shoot a basic scene. The production values are--to be nice--lousy. Very shabby. And, the gore scenes are too unpleasant (I almost turned it off when a pregnant woman started stabbing herself in the stomach) with lousy special effects. The film completely derails at the end when it becomes quite clear they had no idea HOW to end this film.

Some good acting makes it somewhat bearable. Adams, Hayenga and Karen are all good at their roles and kept me watching but that was about it. This film barely got released in 1991 and still remains unknown--it's easy to see why. I give it a 4.


Well, this may be one of the worst movies ever, but atleast there are some nice t*ts in it. The movie is a very bad spoof of The Blair Witch Project, and should be watched only by those wanting to see some t*ts, and NO point other than to flaunt them.


Really, I liked it. The premise was good, the story fit where both respective series left off, and here's my favorite part. Mary and Valerie aren't bitter! They aren't like others who become synonymous with a certain series and then refuse to talk about it, or do possible reunions (A prime example is Susan Dey, 'The Partridge Family'). In fact, Valerie was saying that she'd be thrilled to do another movie, and then Mary said the same thing later, so I would be on the look for another...but if that doesn't quite work out, then they can re-run this one.


This was a fabulous premise based on lots of factual history. But the serious lack of character development left us not really liking or caring about any of the characters, especially the musicologist! She did not get any sympathy; she seems like she deserved his own black cloud. The songs were great to a point, but became repetitive after a while.


I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.

The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't 'hang together,' perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.

It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think 'Lucky Julien!' even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a 'bad thing,' all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.


But perhaps you have to have grown up in the 80's to truly appreciate this movie. If you love the early 80's this is definitely a must see. Also, one of the best soundtracks ever!


At 2:37, a high school student commits suicide. Not shown who has taken their lives or reasons known, time skips back to the start of the day. From here we follow six separate students; Marcus, Melody, Luke, Steven, Sarah and Sean. Each student is struggling with their own moral dilemmas, all reaching boiling point, hitting to an end for one.

After losing a friend to suicide, and surviving his own suicide attempt, writer/director Murali K. Thalluri has created a revetting drama focusing on teen life and the horrible act of suicide. Suicide has been a topic that has been kept in the shadows, 2:37 is Thalluri's attempt to bring it to light. If you have been touched by the act of suicide or anyone who has, 2:37 becomes all the harder to view.

With heavy and hard subject matter, Thalluri also tackles everyday teenage life crisis's. Sex, pregnancy, sexual identity, bullying, friendship, Thalluri manages and shows them in an extremely realistic manner. The factor on Thalluri's talent is his subtlety. He respect his subject and the problems that everyone will have suffered through at sometime. It verges near documentary at times, it has such a painful realism; the interviews with each character spliced through the film only heightens this.

2:37 has a distinctive similarity to Gus Van Sants film Elephant. While the core of each film is different, both tackle teen life. Like Sant, Thalluri utilizes long tracking shots, with time skipping back and forth, to show each characters interaction from different perspectives. A defining point to Elephant was its ethereal ambiance. With spare conversation, little development of characters, and the long tracking shots, Sant created a haunting and mesmerizing atmosphere to a coming dread. While there resides this dread in 2:37, the emotional connection to the characters reaches a higher level Sant couldn't reach. As time goes by, each characters fragility creeps out, dragging you along their emotional roller-coaster.

The real hit in this film comes with the inevitable suicide, foretold at the very beginning. The hard part about this scene is the complete intrusion and discomfort we have as an audience watching someones life end in a gruesome fashion. Though many films that have shown suicide, gloss over the act or romanticizes the act. Thalluri shows the pain and agony involved with this act and that its not the best solution. With unknowns in the leads and their first major roles; Teresa Palmereach, Frank Sweet, Joel Mackenzie, Marni Spillane, Charles Baird and Sam Harris all show immense talent and promising acting careers.

Compelling and revetting, 2:37 is an absolutely unmissable film.


Eric Rohmer's 'The Lady and the Duke' is based on the journals of an English aristocrat who lived through the French revolution. But it's a stilted affair, with its strange, painted backdrops and mannered conversational tone. Most notably, this portrait of age of terror takes place almost entirely at one remove from the real action; one sees very little of ordinary people in this movie, and little of the chaos, poverty and terror that unfolded away from the drawing rooms of the persecuted, but spoilt, aristocratic classes. The result is frequently dull, and ultimately unenlightening about the forces that sometimes drive societies to the brink of destruction; it's a disappointing film from an acclaimed director.


I really wanted to love this film. I have read the book to my daughters and we all loved it. The book is marvelous. This film is very far from the book. The book is splendid - this film is an awful adaptation.

In the book, Sara is honorable, kind, strong, and NEVER does anything spiteful to get back at anyone. That's the POINT of the book! She behaves as a 'princes' regardless of circumstances. An important part of behaving like a princess is to not return unkindness. It is to behave honorably regardless of how you are being treated.

In the book, she endures much and touches the lives of others. Other people change their behaviors after they witnessed her kindness and ability to endure without sinking to spite and vengefulness. Sara does what is right simply BECAUSE it is RIGHT.

Outside of the bakery, she comes upon a beggar girl who is more poor and hungry than she is. She has half a dozen hot buns. She is VERY hungry. She gives one bun to this wild looking little girl huddled on the doorstep of the bakery. When she sees how ravenous the girl is and watches her gobble the bun, she gives her another. She continues to do this until she has given 3 or 4 I think - I don't remember how many.

The baker is watching through the window. She is so moved by what she has witnessed, she takes the beggar girl in and raises her as her own daughter. Other people are similarly influenced by Sara.

And in the book, her father has died. The man next door is her father's partner - he has been looking for her. Her father did not lose his money after all - the man is thrilled to find Sara; he takes her and Becky into his home and raises them as his daughters. And Sara has her full inheritance, of course.

Miss Minchin is not a chimney sweep. In fact, she remains in her same post at the school. But she is humiliated as Sara has told her new guardian of the cruel treatment she received. And Sara does speak to Miss Minchin in the end - Miss Minchin is trying to minimize her treatment of Sara and Sara with a calm steadfast demeanor, instructs Miss Minchin that she had been cruel.

There is no comeuppance for Miss Minchin. She continues on in her miserable existence. It does not matter - what matters is that Sara has a home with a guardian who loves her - and her dearest friend in the world, Becky, is now for all intents and purposes, her sister.

The book is about love and honorable behavior under the worst of circumstances. It is about self control and humility. It is a wonderful book. This film does NOTHING to capture the true story and messages of the book. My wife was so disgusted with it, she wanted to leave the theater in the middle, but we decided to stick it out. We were not rewarded.

I cannot for the life of me think of a reason the film makes should alter this excellent book in such a bad direction. Perhaps it was the influence of the ghastly screenplay from the book that Shirley Temple acted in. I don't know - but this film is so far from the book in character and values that I do not recognize it.

Don't waste your time - buy the book. It is unforgettable... even for a dad!


Wagon Master is a very unique film amongst John Ford's work. Mainly because it's the only one that is based on a story written by John Ford himself, the story that was elaborated by Frank Nugent and director's son  Patrick Ford and turned into a screenplay, and because of director's personal opinion regarding it, Wagon Master is the film John Ford called the one which `came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve', to say so is not to say a little, but as Ford confessed once to Lindsay Anderson, his favourite was nonetheless My Darling Clementine and not any other.

 Wagon Master has all ingredients one might expect to find in a John Ford's film. Wonderful cast delivering his best, thou not featuring any major stars, except the most `fordian' of all actors  Ben Johnson. Very peculiar small characters, who provide an obligatory comic relief, and Wagon Master has quite a few of them such as horn blowing Sister Ledyard (Jane Darwell) in her shot but very inspired gigs. And last but not least legendary Monument Valley with John Ford's fifth passage through it after Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

 The film starts with two friends cowboys Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and Sandy Owens (Harry Carey Jr) being hired to be Wagon Masters or guides for a caravan of Mormon settlers who are headed to Silver Valley, a place that's for them like a promised land. On their way they are joined by a very peculiar Dr. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) with two beautiful women, who are supposedly his wife and daughter and who call themselves actors. They are headed in the same direction simply because they were recently driven out of the nearest town and have no other place to go. Nothing particularly unpleasant happens till they bump into Cleggs, a dangerous family gang consisting of father and his three sons who are on the run from the Marshal of the town where they recently committed murder and bank robbery.

 Overall Wagon Master is no more nor less than one more precious pearl in a necklace of John Ford's wonderful Westerns. A must see. 9/10


In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so farthe fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.


When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations, just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either, there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again, this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means, I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something.

The movie doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many things in common but are worlds apart.


I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.

This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.

Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.

Thank you.


After reading more than my fair share of reviews for a vast number of different movies I have noticed a certain trend, people judge to harshly on what the expected to see. I figure if you go into a movie open-minded not expecting anything certain than you will have better feelings towards it then if you try and watch but have pre-created standards you want it to reach.

Since I try not to be hypocritical I watched this movie with a very clean slate and open-mind, and was very much pleased. Since it is not a mainstream title or award winning for that matter I did not know quite what to expect, but in all truth I enjoyed it a good deal more than Ninja Scroll. Lovely animation, deep story, and the always joyful ninja hack-n-slashing combined extremely well to one of my personal favorite animes ever made.

I am not promising that you will enjoy it, but just give it a chance and you may come out with a pleasant surprise.

- 'Before speaking, be sure of what you will say will be more beautiful than the silence' - Chinese proverb


If you've ever seen the trailer for the film 'The Recruit' with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino, you'll never have to see that film. Sadly, Renaissance has had similarly revelatory trailer makers.

The story of Renaissance is about a detective investigating the kidnapping of a young woman and medical researcher. The setting is a futuristic Paris, and science fiction elements feature throughout. The special thing about Renaissance, though, is its visual style, and not its story. Renaissance is 3D computer animation, like Final Fantasy, but highly stylised into black and white with ultra sharp contrasts. The result looks stunning (although the problems of 3D animation of human beings are still noticeable from time to tome: slightly robotic movements, slightly wooden facial acting, etc) As a highly stylised, beautiful film noir, Renaissance succeeds at stunning the audience, especially visually. The story and writing, though, are not quite at the same level of quality as the visuals. It's not a bad story (and presumably, if you haven't seen the trailer, it's a lot more exciting than it was for me). But it is a story that isn't highly original, and verges on the corny. A few lines of dialogue were painfully corny, making the writing sound like a beginner's first efforts.

I will definitely recommend Renaissance to friends. It's unlike anything I've seen before, visually, and I believe its originality alone makes it a worthwhile experience. It is also a watchable story, even if it isn't perfect.


'Carlito's Angels' is a spoof of 'Charlie's Angels' that is not afraid to spoof even itself at times, however that does not mean that the film is above criticism by the viewers as well - it is amateurish and juvenile (I think 'fast-motion' stopped being funny around 1914). The assaulting rap music often drowns out the dialogue, and the film feels longer than it is, even though it runs barely over an hour! The girls themselves are hot & adorable, with wonderful lean bodies, and even though they never get naked, their outfits leave little to the imagination. By checking out their IMDb pages, I found out that one of them (Alessandra Ramos) is actually going through with a film career; I wish her luck, because although this film is bad, she (as well as the other girls) gave it whatever energy it has and I wouldn't mind at all seeing her again on the screen. (*)


I would have rated this film a minus 10 but sadly it is not offered.

Why I didn't walk out in the first five minutes of this movie I cannot say. I should have gone with my instinct and left immediately!! Several people in our theater did and sadly I didn't follow them out.

The story lacked all criteria for a movie. NO plot. Awful acting! Even Robin Williams was so disappointing that I may never see another film he is in. Not a single relationship in the story went beyond parlor talk. I did like the tazer scene. Too bad it didn't shock some meat into the senselessness of the plot. Someone needs to tazer the writer and director of this film!


Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.

The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a 'cool' movie that 'looks' great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.

Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our 'heroes', are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.

It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.

The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.

Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.


If there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music.


This comment does contain spoilers!!

There are few actors that have an intangible to them. That innate quality which is an amalgamation of charisma, panache and swagger. It's the quality that can separate good actors from the truly great. I think George Clooney has it and so does Jack Nicholson. You can look at Clooney's subtle touches in scenes like his one word good-bye to Andy Garcia in Ocean's 11 when they just utter each other's name disdainfully. 'Terry.' 'Danny.' You can pick any number of Jack's performances dating as far back as Five Easy Pieces in the diner to A Few Good Men and his court room interrogation scene. These guys just have it. You can add Denzel Washington to the small and exclusive list of actors who exudes that terrific trait in everything he does. If you look at some of his explosive borderline diatribes in The Siege to his impressive tribute to Malcolm X in Spike Lee's film of the same name, you can see that there is no finer an actor working today. I don't mention all of this to insinuate that Man On Fire is perfect just because of Denzel's work, but he is definitely the cog of the production. I was literally mesmerized with some of his scenes that are raw, emotional and incendiary all at the same time.

Washington plays Creasy a former spy or CIA agent or one of those covert government operatives. He has pretty much hit rock bottom as he has become disillusioned with the life that he has led. He has killed and perhaps done things that are best left unsaid and this has made him a hardened and bitter man. His friend and perhaps mentor, played very reservedly by Christopher Walken, is living in Mexico making a very comfortable living by providing body guard services for the rich. Apparently the kidnapping business in Mexico is so vibrant that these paid former S.E.A.L.s and such can do very well while providing a needed service. Creasey needs the work and accepts a job with a well to do family who seems to be in some financial difficulty. Marc Anthony is fine as Samuel, Radha Mitchell is tantalizingly sexy as his wife Lisa and Dakota Fanning is just unbelievably and precociously brilliant as Pita. I don't know how a child of her age can have such range to play the characters that she does but her interpretation of Pita is nothing short of Oscar worthy. The film's entire first half is dependent on the relationship between Pita and Creasy and if there was a weaker actress in the role, perhaps that emotional synergy would not have come across so succinctly. But Fanning is nothing short of remarkable in the role.

It is the relationship between Pita and Creasy that drives this film to the apex of cinema. Together they are perfect and there is a real bond developed between them. Tony Scott directs with a frenetic urgency and his eye for visual flare has never been better. I am interested to see how his next film, Domino, turns out. I think Scott is one of today's under rated directors and with more films like this one, his name will surely be elevated to icon status.

The story has Creasy really taking to Pita, and vis-ca versa. There is a definite connection between the two of them and perhaps it stems from the fact that although Pita loves her dad, he is not around much. He is a philanthropist and obviously has little time to spend with his family. Soon, Creasy is taking Pita to her swimming competition. He is reading her bedtime stories and she is naming her teddy bear 'Creasy'. It's not just a friendship between them, it is more of a kinship, and a deep parental love seems to be present.

The film changes gears when Pita does get kidnapped and held for ransom and Creasy is is almost fatally injured trying to protect her. This is where the story becomes thick with innuendo and ripe with deceit as the plot pieces get unraveled like an onion. And this is where Denzel becomes a tour de force. Like I said earlier, I have seen Denzel give some outstanding performances in films like Crimson Tide and Training Day, but never have I seen him like this. He is a man possessed and with the possibility of Pita being dead, he becomes a literal man on fire. It rages in him as he hunts down and dishes out his brand of comeuppance. Denzel's anger and acerbity are ubiquitous and not easily quelled as he hunts down each person responsible for Pita's violation. This all vigilante justice as the Mexican authorities always seem to be one step behind.

Also what is paramount to this film's audacious brilliance is that there are few films that actually give the criminals their due comeuppance. I have often been frustrated to watch films where the bad guys get let off easily. They inflict all kinds of torment for the entire film and then they take a bullet and die. But not in this film. Writer Brian Helgeland sees to it that retribution here is unequivocal and it is painful. The perpetrators here feel Creasy's wrath and they experience the torment that he unleashes. There is nothing gimmicky about his brand of justice. He needs information and someone loses a finger. He wants answers and a homemade bomb is placed in places that are meant for other things. There is no punches pulled here and this is one of the true strengths of the film.

Man on Fire is one the five best films of 2004. Now that it is out on DVD, my recommendation is to get the SE. It is loaded with bonus features that include about 6 hours of documentaries and different commentary tracks. 10/10


It takes a while to get adjusted to the sound of Sons of The Pioneers , but then you thoroughly enjoy it. If the soundtrack would be played by an orchestra like Max Steiner or Dmitri Tiomkin it would lose its folkloric character. The music conducts the film, everything seems to follow its rhythm. The whole cast is excellent. Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. are the young men guiding the caravan. Ward Bond is the Mormon leader and Joanne Dru is a flirting actress. Ford was able to make of what would be an ordinary western, something totally different and original showing us the music, the dances, and most of all, the people.


Ronald Colman plays a prodigal son. While he is NOT a bad guy, he is a bit flighty and hasn't done a lot with his life other than travel the world and have a jolly good time. Now that his latest venture in Africa has failed, he's on his way home to England. His rich upper class father plans on tossing him out on his ear, though thanks to Ronald's winning style, he is reluctantly welcomed back with open arms.

At this point, there are two women in his life--showgirl Myrna Loy and rich girl Loretta Young (who is already engaged). How will all this work out and will Ronald wise up and act like a responsible adult--these are the main themes of this pleasant little film.

This isn't a great movie and certainly won't change your life, but it certainly is very entertaining and fun. Most of this is due to the always genial acting of Ronald Colman. Heck, in the heyday of his career in the 1930s, he could have played in REEFER MADNESS or some other dreck and still made it entertaining and likable due to his charming persona. His seemingly effortless style in this movie make it very easy to like him and it's easy to see why both Loretta Young and Myrna Loy are in love with him in the film! Plus, the writing is very witty and make this a nice romantic-comedy.


Lang does Hawks as well as Hawks does in the first part of this extraordinary Western, before settling down into typical deterministic, dark and guilt-haunted Lang for the finale.

This is one of those films that shows its greatness almost instantly but at the same time very subtly. Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) is on horseback and being pursued, we know not why -- he stumbles on wounded Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger) and decides to take his gun and horse, but discovering that Creighton is in a bad way, decides to fix him up first. This is conveyed mostly through facial expressions and very brief, clipped dialog - in 2 minutes we know that Shaw is an outlaw, but basically a good guy. Shaw ends up helping Creighton on his way to civilization, then disappears.

Cut to a few weeks or months later, with Creighton on the mend and in charge of an expedition to lay telegraph wire going west from Omaha. He hires Shaw as a scout, who tries to leave when he finds out that Creighton is in charge; but Creighton wants him anyway, repaying a debt and sensing something quality. Also hired is a tenderfoot, son of a benefactor of the project, but atypically the Easterner Richard Blake (Robert Young) is quite competent as he shows right away in an amusing but exciting bronco-busting sequence. Both of the hires vie for Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore) who - again not typically - seems quite as able to take care of herself as any man. The camaraderie between the three men, the comedic elements involving an unwilling cook and various rough and tumble types, and the wonderfully played light romantic elements dominate the first third of the film and reminded me more of Howard Hawks' 'Red River' or 'Only Angels Have Wings' than most Lang - but they are so well played and the action progresses so naturally that it doesn't matter, and doesn't alter our pleasure - if it does perhaps change our expectations - as the more usual Langian themes of the haunted past, dark secrets and the immense pull of the easier, destructive and evil ways come to dominate the later part of the film. Shaw's old pals come back to haunt him as the the wagon train and its wires move westward; attacks mount on the crew, and Shaw has to wrestle with what, if anything, he is to tell Creighton about his tortured relationship with Jack Slade (Barton MacLane), leader of the outlaws.

Beautifully shot in early Technicolor and moving fairly seamlessly from sound stages to western locations, this is for my money easily Lang's best western and one of his very best films, conveying as potently as any of his films the tragic inability of men to escape their pasts and build a new future. Scott is as good as I've seen him, showing more with a flick of an eye than a lot of actors can do in a paragraph of dialog, and the rest of the cast is uniformly fine. The inevitable showdown between Shaw's past criminal life and his potential future is extraordinary, and a surprise even for a longtime Lang devotee such as myself; and even in 1941 it seems there was no place more fraught with meaning on the margins of civilization than the barbershop and the dusty street outside. You can get a shave, you can feel like a new man, but you can't really ever be one as long as the old ties are still holding you back.

Genius.


One of those TV films you saw in the seventies that scared the hell out of you when you were a kid but still gives you an eerie feeling. No great actors or expensive production but everytime that phone rings......


Yes I know 'talkies' had just been invented for the cinema 2 years earlier when this was produced in 1929 but this film showed that much had to learnt about the art of producing films.It comes over as a filmed 'hammy' stage play with the actors melodramatically enunciating their lines,rolling their eyes, using too many pregnant pauses and using gestures more appropriate to silent cinema, which I suppose was normal during the process of educating them to appear more naturalistic on screen.The gaps between lines spoken should have been tightened up during editing as it considerably slows the film.It is now only of interest for Titanic buffs who want to see an early example of this marine accident on film.In next chronological order they could see 'Titanic' (1953) A Night to Remember (1958)'Titanic (1997), to see how the cinema's depiction of this tragedy as evolved over the years.There have been many documentaries and TV films made including the atrocious 'SOS Titanic' (1979) On my version which is a DVD, David McCallum gives the introduction.It was he who played Harold Bride Marconi's junior wireless operator in 'A Night to Remember'(still the best feature film - please read my 'Tribute to Walter' comments on IMDb under Howard Morley.demon.co.uk)and gave the commentary on the series of 4 videos entitled 'End of a Dream' so he was well qualified to give the narration.Of more interest I found was a recording accompanied by actual photos of the 1912 US Senate hearing which is also on the DVD.Actors speak the actual words spoken by Lightoller 2nd officer, J Bruce Ismay,Managing director of White Star, Harold Bride and others including Gloria Stewart (The 'old Rose' in Titanic 1997) whose voice is used for one of the first class women survivors.


I saw this film when it was released to theaters. It's definitely one to remember, I had forgotten the title until recently. A friend found it via online search.

One Dark Night is rather unusual for the suspense/horror genre of the time in that it contains no blood. It is of the teen fright variety yet the teens are respectable in their own ways. It's a nice, old-school film with props and scenes that reflect the times. Our hero rides a motorcycle with no brain bucket, for example.

As has been mentioned by previous reviewers, One Dark Night is currently available on DVD. The original negative was not available for the DVD transition. Some reel changes are a bit rough but this doesn't take away from the story. That being said, the colors are vibrant and the lighting is very good.

Adam West plays a rather smallish part in this film as RayMar's son-in-law. His role as an overbearing and indifferent husband is thankfully short.

The story builds over the course of the film. Unlike many horror films of the era, One Dark Night is a great suspense story that gives the viewer time to absorb what is happening.

The final 20 minutes or so of One Dark Night are what make it so memorable. RayMar's telekinetic abilities are used to open old graves in the mausoleum, pull the coffins out, open them and move the corpses around. Attention was afforded to great detail in the final scenes. The rotting, worm-riddled corpses look quite real.


What I wouldn't do to give this film a re-write. Extra disappointing due to the great beginning, Solo Dios Sabe degenerates into a mess of superstitious bull after the halfway point and ends on a note so ludicrous, soppy and melodramatic I couldn't believe I was watching the same movie I started with. The film had numerous elements in its favor, such as chemistry between Diego Luna and Alice Braga so palpable I thought the screen would start sparking, a great soundtrack, and beautiful locations. Instead of ending with the heavy-handed religious mumbo jumbo, the film should have kept the focus on being a frothy road movie with maybe some undertones about fate and superstition vs. logic peppered through. I understand the director's entire intent with the film was to make it about religion, but the fact is that it just didn't work, and he threw away so much great stuff from the beginning by doing so.


It is is very sad to see someone of the calibre of George C Scott in a low budget thriller which would have been better if the original novel was written by Graham Greene and directed by someone somewhat more experienced in the genre. NOT TO MENTION A BETTER CINEMATOGRAPHER. There are so many missed opportunities with the scenery and carnival merely glossed over, rather than captured to locate the movie solidly in the exotic setting of the novel.

Elsewhere in the viewer comments on this site, one very astute observer complained about the variety of diabolically bad accents in this film. Ever since I saw George C Scott as Rochester in Jane Eyre, I have prayed for him NEVER to ever accept again a role which required him to assume a British accent. Just every now and then, he could just possibly pass for British or a very British sounding South African played obviously by an American actor. I can stomach Meryl Streep's extraordinarily laboured accents (both British and Australian) - at least she gets it right even though with every utterance, she demands that we marvel at her skill. Well, I am sorry that Mr. Scott is no Meryl Streep, and it just destroys the illusion - like having Michele Yeoh speak excruciating Mandarin with a strong Singaporean accent in Crouching Tiger etc.

Peterson acts no differently than what we see on CSI. Except he is still very handsome and more or less slim in this movie. He is the Harrison Ford of TV. Same old expressions for every emotion, every situation. No on second thought, Ford has two - perplexed/pained and happy. I have never seen a smile on Mr. CSI!


This movie states through its protagonist that the world is essentially sadness and pain and those that ignore this have blinders on. One can argue whether this is true or not. But even if you accept this as true, the movie's ending either A) disputes this by saying there can be some good in tragic situations or B) forgets this and uses a cliched montage in order to leave the audience feeling uplifted.

That the movie metaphorically acquits its protagonist by presenting him as a sympathetic character despite any evidence for that sympathy shows contempt for the supporting characters who were the most compelling in the film.

So what you have in this film is a script that is not consistent in its theme and direction that does not bring the ending into sync with the rest of the film. There are excellent performances given by every member of the cast especially Spacey, Olin, Martin Donovan, and Ann Magnuson. It's a shame that they weren't supported by a better writer/director.


After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. 'Stay Alive' is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing.'Stay Alive' is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.


This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch 'Mr. Imperium', don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.


I thought the movie was good, but I like to read the real story behind the 'based on a true story' movies. Does anyone know the names and locations of the real characters the movie is based on? I have done a complete internet search and cannot find any information on this case. All I get is the movie information and the fact that it is based on a 'true story.' I find it hard to believe that a judge would change his sentence rendered immediately in the courtroom, even after such a heartfelt speech by the brother (gorgeous John Corbett), but overall the story was very gripping. Anyway, if anyone knows the real 'real story', I would appreciate you sharing it!


This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do.

However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.

Some matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big Bossman vs Akeem was too short.

Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed.

Overall Grade - B


This is a pretty decent example of film noir. The setting is the early 50's with the Communists trying to steal weapon secrets from the US Government.

Richard Widmark is the suave pickpocket without scruples. He gives a pretty decent performance but there is nothing A-List about him. The interesting thing was that he was not only an anti-hero but through most of the film, an unlikeable anti-hero. That is not very normal. Jean Peters gave a so-so performance as the hooker with the heart of gold. That great character actress Thelma Ritter shines as the stool-pigeon.

The plot had its fair share of twists and turns, wisecracks and tough talk. There is a fight scene near the end of the movie (in the subway station) that was pretty gritty and exciting.

I think noir fans (like myself) will enjoy this film. For non-noir viewers, it may seem a little dated and the whole Commie thing a tad overdone.


30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' and 'Svengoolie,' but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like 'Plan Nine From Outer Space.'


I hated the first movie is really boring and we only get see the Octopus at the end.

The plot Dead bodies are being found in the New York harbor. The police have no clues nor suspects until Nick and his colleague realize the killer is a giant octopus. Everybody, especially the police captain, refuses to believe Nick's story, and soon the harbor will be filled with boats for the 4th of July celebrations...

In this movie we get to see more of the Giant Octopus and Special effects for this movie are really good for it's time.

The acting is this movie not bad but not great too but okay and watch able.

The are some really cheese scenes to movie but if can get past that, You should enjoy the rest of movie.

5/10


As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure.

The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.

The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next 'Pulp Fiction'. This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie.

Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow.

Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.


Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed

adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in

college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the

Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or

interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all

game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't

open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.


I recently purchased the complete American Gothic series on DVD and it lived up to my memories of it. I was very grateful to be able to view for the first time episodes that were never televised. I loved 'Ring of Fire' in particular of the stories I hadn't seen the first time around.

Gary Cole is fantastic as 'evil, sexy' Lucas Buck. Lucas Black as Caleb is also a superb player. I thought Brenda Bakke as Selena Coombs was also superb in her portrayal. In fact, the whole cast was fantastically talented and had great chemistry with each other.

It's a shame the series was screwed by the network (in collusion with a burgeoning group of censors) because it was truly designed for adult viewing. A mixture of comedy, tragedy, farce, satire, Gothic romance and horror genres, it offered brilliant characterizations supported by acting at the genius level.

I had the most tremendous lust for the devil for once in my life. Long live Gary Cole (Sheriff Lucas Buck), the most luscious 'fallen angel' ever.


While my kids enjoyed the movie (and announced afterward that they want to buy it later) I think I got more out of it that they did. The scene in the airport shop at the beginning is real life (I did not use the cutting comment aloud, but I thought it). It is a feel good mid-life movie, a bit sappy and some scenes work less well than others (why does the kid stay with Bruce Willis after he knows his Mom is dying?), but all in all and good time. It also gave our family something to talk about - did my kids think my life was boring? What do they expect at 40? How can you not like a movie that gets a good conversation going with your kids?


CAMP BLOOD

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...

Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of 'Friday the 13th', 'The Burning' and 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre') without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).


For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.

Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: 'The Amazing Mr. X.' Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.

This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.

Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.

This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.


With a film starring the Twins, Ekin Cheng and Edison Chen, nobody should expect a masterpiece of cinema. What you do get, however, is a fun film which is easy on the eye and the brain. There are loads of Hollywood-style vampires (no hopping Chinese bloodsuckers here), cute girls, handsome heroes and the occasionally very funny moment. And Jackie Chan.

Sure, the kung-fu relies heavily on wire work and CGI. Sure, the script reminds you of Blade. And sure, the whole affair is instantly forgettable.

But for a truly enjoyable piece of cinematic fluff, you would be hard pushed to find better.


This movie was terrible. It is not something that people should have to pay to see. It looks like some Christian group made it to convert people. I don't understand why it was released to theaters and not to TV.

It started out like an old fashioned B movie sci-fi film from the 50s, but quickly changed. About 30 minutes into the movie the characters start talking about 'God' and 'Do you believe in Jesus?' It quickly moves into pure religion territory.

I thought I was going to a Sci-Fi movie. The film has poor acting; bad camera angles and is amateurish.

AVOID IT!


This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.

I think the title says it all, 'spirit'. This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end.

Enjoy 'Spirit' with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too.


I was privileged to have seen some snippets from Aardman's original run of this show in the UK. It was always fun and always funny. None of the charm has been lost in translation--it's as fresh as the people interviewed--whether some of it is scripted or not, as has been rumored, is beside the point. It's always entertaining.

Aardman Animations shows great imagination in the characters used for each voice, the single aspect that I probably love most about the show and its concept (the hostility between the pandas, the porcupines discussing fear of needles, the painting ape). Regulars really grow on you as well, such as the horse and donkey teens from Maryland, most every married couple (the parrots, the insects, and the cats to name a few) and child-voiced character, and I've really come to dig the ferret! Monday's finally become a day to which to look forward.


I just finished watching this horribly depressing drama and realized that, in light of recent dramas such as these, the only ones who could be considered abnormal are those who are least aware that life is nothing more than tragic. I would suggest how nauseatingly defeatist and counter-productive this conclusion is, even if relationships and outlooks like those presented in this movie are grounded in fact to some degree. But, instead, I realized that these films have made the very determination of the great 'tragedy' trivial when the same boring situations, the same suffocating dysfunctional families and friendships continue to play out just have they been over and over again in some sort of attempt to knock out previous distortions of family life (much of it existing in the 1950s and earlier with personality and character aberrations being made ever so subtle), supplanting it instead with the 'reality' of how things actually are. That in fact, what we are watching is no longer the dysfunctional, but in fact, a normal existence and set of circumstances that has actually existed all along, but of which we may have been previously been unaware and thus, have ignored or at least denied.

Only problem is, that too many films have been trying to make this point. And by doing so in nearly identical form. When I had read the synopsis for the film, I immediately thought of 'Ice Storm.' While watching the depressing lifelessness of the Travis family, which seemed to endure repeated emotional berating, I immediately recalled 'American Beauty.' And, in some regards, the interactions between the parents and the middle child, Tim, I drew similarities from 'Igby Goes Down.' 'Imaginary Heroes' may be a novel experience, maybe a refreshing one deemed so for an honest portrayal of character that, as said before, is often not permitted to exist in the films of family (which is idiotic to think anyways, considering we were already seeing these kinds of relationships displayed in films like 'Ordinary People' as early as 1980 and which go back even further than that). But, to the well-versed viewer, these films may offer nothing new. They have in fact, become a rather tired testimony of too many filmmakers who may try to out-do the other with the amount of trauma and apathy they can pack into one family (and here, it extends to neighbors and friends). In fact, 'Imaginary Heroes,' the latest in this genre (I do think there have been enough films to accurately declare it a 'genre'), crams so many disasters and surprises into one family, that they would make prize finds for a daytime talk show host. It is the story of a family who is tested by the suicide of the eldest son, a talented and decorated swimmer who hated the sport with a passion. The youngest son knew this, the father was in a daze and blinded by the push for competitiveness in his all-star son. And it's not clear that the mother and sister had much of a relationship with the young man.

Granted, it is no less entertaining (to some extent, for those who find this material exhaustively depressing after a while), and the performances are quite good, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels. But, I sure hope that filmmakers in the future wishing to add to the commentary of struggling familial relationships (which coincidentally or not always seem to be upper-middle class white suburban families) intend to offer something new by way of material and insight. I should see no distinction (and consequently, no purpose) otherwise.


Like 'The Blair Witch Project' before it, 'Hatchet' has garnered its own fair share of publicity from the bottom-on-up (as an avid reader of Fangoria Magazine, the full-page ads are hard to miss); even after its middling theatrical run, the film is bound to subsist solely on the hype surrounding it, and will probably turn into a cult item at some point. With a MySpace URL and a mighty (if puzzlingly subjective) promise of preserving so-called 'old school American horror,' 'Hatchet' will draw a lot of curiosity seekers with its DVD release (where that claim is emblazoned on the disc itself). Perhaps it was the large-print blurb from Ain't It Cool News on the ads that caused me to approach the film with some trepidation (it seems that Harry Knowles and his minions will approve of any film for VIP passes and free food), but 'Hatchet' makes me question what writer-director Adam Green's idea of 'old school American horror' really is: based on the evidence here, it means the insipid, late-'80s rip-offs of 'Friday the 13th' and 'Deliverance.' The characters are obnoxious stereotypes (black Chris Tucker type, Survivalist Chick, Topless Bimbos, Requisite Old Couple, Asian Tour Guide) whose interactions are marred by painful, trying-to-be-hip dialogues and mostly obvious stabs at humor (not quite as bad as 'Cabin Fever,' but still); the script has too much padding (the 'rustling bush' scene, for example), and 'Hatchet' winds up as typical as any postmodern slasher of the last decade, with its only distinguishing trait an expertly-calculated hype machine. I'll give it some faint praise for the gore--if you can wade through the padding in between kills, the red vino is definitely a thing of wonder, and the only real reason to watch this.


I rarely watch short films as they only seem to be on late night television and are not publicised enough for me to know which short films are worth while. As The Room is an extra feature on The Hitcher DVD, it gave me a wonderful opportunity to witness a high quality short with Rutger Hauer in excellent form.

Artistically shot in black and white, The Room explores a man's obsession with a room he passed by in the early stages of adulthood and is expressed in a documentary/ interview style. The dialogue is very poetic, typical of a man expressing his feelings for a woman, but is also juxtaposed with ramblings and occasional deficiencies in fluency. This adds great realism and depth to Hauer's performance who is perfect as an eccentric man with most of his life behind him.

The piano music that Harry (Hauer) hears from the room is constantly in the background and enhances the touching atmosphere of the film and intensifies the feelings of sadness expressed by Hauer.

Hauer proves he is more than just a psychotic Hollywood bad guy with this role and perfectly displays his more sensitive side. Mattijn Hartemink is also effective in the flashback scenes as young Harry with a silent role. He shows how affected he is by the music and his disappointment when it goes away.

The ending is prophetic and leaves you in a reflective mood longer than many feature length films. A very good effort.


For me too, this Christmas special is one that I remember very fondly. In 1989, I snatched up the 2 CDs I found of the soundtrack recording, giving one to my sister and keeping the other for myself. It's part of my family's Christmas tradition now, and I would love to be able to actually see the show again rather than just remember it as I listen.

It has been noted elsewhere that John Denver made a number of appearances on the Muppet Show, and they did more than one special together. The good rapport between Denver and his fuzzy companions comes through clearly here, in a charming and fun show that is good for all ages.


This is so exciting! After I saw 'La Roue' this afternoon, a short, light-hearted little movie, I consider this one a real treat! This is absolutely delightful and one of the most charming pictures I saw this year. It is the more amazing since it is an early talkie and puts some great pictures of the 30's to shame due to its innovative use of sound in cinema. It's simply filled with music and an adorable mood that's really upbeat and, bottom line, it made me happy! Obviously it wouldn't be so difficult to retrieve the lottery ticket the male lead was looking for, but the pace is so exhilarating and the movie is so spectacularly entertaining that I didn't even think of it twice. The comedy is many times hilarious and I think it is even superior to the Marx Brothers, possibly the biggest comedic force of the time. This is rather perfect.


Directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, 'Scarface' is a movie that will not be forgotten. A Cuban refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) comes to America for the American Dream. Montana then becomes the 'king' in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his empire of crime in Miami, Florida. This gangster movie is very violent, and some scenes are unpleasant to watch. This movie has around 180+ F-words and is almost three hours long. This movie is entertaining and you will never get bored. You cheer for the Drug-lord, and in some scenes you find out that Montana isn't as evil as some other Crime Lords. This is a masterpiece and i recommend that you see this. You will not be disappointed. 9/10


Some Plot Spoilers Ahead.

The Nashville Network's so-called rebirth as 'The First Network for Men' is a complete disappointment, as was its block of adult cartoons. The new Ren and Stimpy was just plain awful, 'Gary the Rat' mediocre at best, and 'Stripperella' pretty unwatchable. This cartoon is mostly boring; if 'Ren and Stimpy' suffered from gross-out overkill, 'Stripperella' lacked any decent shock gags, funny witless gags, clever gags, or gags, period. The concept is bad to begin with: Pamela Anderson, a stripper-cum-superheroine, saves 'The City' from an assortment of goofy supervillains. This cartoon seems like an homage to superior wacky superhero spoofs, like 'Darkwing Duck' and 'The Tick,' but without those cartoons' wit and good writing---or even good storyboarding. 'Agent 0069' tries to vacillate between being goofy and sexy, but she is neither, and this cartoon's failure to make her one or the other brings this series down.

Watch your taped episodes of 'The Tick,' and see what a real superhero spoof cartoon is like.


For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a 'Shaft' movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that 'no-one understands him but his woman' thing going on, replete with his 'hot' girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate 'dirty-talk') and his mild 'In The Heat Of The Night' riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like 'Serpico' and 'Dog Day Afternoon' - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like 'The Hot Rock' instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.


As a 'rebuttle' of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.

Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor.


This movie typifies the early eighties as well as FUN!! I remember watching this movie on HBO when I was little, and it was my favorite movie. Since it was a while ago, no one I had ever met knew what it was. Then, about the time my roommate had said she had seen it too, and that it was her favorite, they started to print it again!! Luckily, I have a copy now!! If anyone ever wants to see the greatest (cheesy) scavenger hunt that was probably the beginning ideas of hazing for frats, this movie is it!!! (Watcher - has to have a serious love for cheesy 80's type movies!!)


I don't go for that many 'heist' comedies, and I might not care for this one if it weren't for the actors, when it was made, and when I FIRST SAW it (just a few years later). It's almost too similar to 'The Happening' (even though it's obviously a much less serious comedy than that one) - Mafia figure takes over his own kidnapping, or rather, turns it in a different direction altogether. Of course, Raquel Welch didn't play the kind of sharp character Faye Dunaway did in The Happening, but that doesn't make it a sexist film either - she was practically playing a stock character, almost HER version of a 'moll'! But, I'm completely biased - it's among the first films I ever saw with her, and at the time I saw it, you couldn't turn around without seeing a poster of her (luckily). I think Robert Wagner was really just right as the neither thoroughly likable nor dis-likable leader of the group, as were Edward G. Robinson (naturally) and Vittoria De Sica. And Godfrey Cambridge, an actor who always managed to be funny.


OK, maybe it doesn't deserve an Oscar. Or a Golden Globe. Or any award, for that matter. The acting isn't outstanding, there's no reason to give credits to the directing, and its really just another semi-gory 21st century slasher flick that MOST people will consider just decent. Or maybe even dreadful. But in my opinion, all of this doesn't matter a bit. And thats because i had a great time watching this movie.

Sure, the first 40 minutes are pretty slow, but as the movie progresses, something in it you will like, if you are like I was, and anybody else should be when watching this movie. And that is: looking for 2 hours of fun, mindless violence. (And a kick-ass ending, which i won't spoil.) Yes, there are many flaws in this movie, but don't let the cast list on the front cover fool you. Hilton delivers a decent performance that nobody saw coming. Even her greatest haters like me and my friends had to agree that she surprised us greatly with her barely believable acting skills and a strip-tease that wasn't as nasty as anything an online pop-up would promise of her, but still not so unbearable as to fast-forward or turn off the DVD.

The violence in this surprised me; nobody at school or on the horror board was talking about it like they were about 'these new movies called 'Saw' and 'Hostel'' but I could safely say that 'Wax' was more graphic than Saw, and some death scenes were actually quite disturbing.

In conclusion, I'm not surprised House of Wax didn't make a place on the IMDb Top 250, but it is definitely worth a look.


'Shadrach' was not my favorite type of movie. I found it overly sentimental and the acting was below par. Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell were good but some of the other actors weren't at all believable. I also did not believe that Paul's parents would go away and leave him with the Dabney family, especially when they had a housekeeper living in the home. Their social classes were too far apart to consider this believable. It seemed the Dabney's lifestyle was too exaggerated. There was a scene in the beginning of the movie that showed Andie MacDowell getting out of a car after having sex with someone. Who was it? Her son? What was the scene supposed to show us? Why was the scene even included? It had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was in fact never alluded to again. It seemed gratuitous and not fitting into the story at all. There were too many inconsistencies in the movie for me. The story concerning Shadrach was nice but I wasn't convinced that the Dabneys would have been as kind and generous as they were portrayed.


Am I the only one to notice that the 'realism' of the 19th century ship is erroneous. Actually it's a 15th century, right around 1620 if memory serves me, because the 'realistic' ship in the movie is the Mayflower, now as far as I know the Mayflower NEVER went to Australia or even attempted a voyage to Australia. I don't know who handled R&D for this film, but using the Mayflower and hoping that no one will notice is a poor job indeed.

They even printed it on the cover art and the DVD. I wonder how may other people noticed this little blunder? Not to mention that the movie itself was just plain awful, I would have expected better from Sam Neill.


One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).


Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone.


These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.

Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the 'shocking' moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.


ALL FOR LOVE ( as it titled when it was broadcast at the weekend ) is a romantic period drama featuring Captain Saint Ives a French officer in Napoleon`s army who is captured by the British and imprisoned in Scotland where he meets and falls in love with a young maiden who visits the prison . There`s also a storyline involving a murder .

I will be honest and confess that I wasn`t too taken by the movie since I`m not much of a fan of period dramas and the screenplay feels somewhat episodic but I will say that this is well acted by everyone involved and it`s got a good cast that features Miranda Richardson , Anna Friel , Richard E Grant , Michael Gough and Jason Isaacs . The costume design as you can expect is also excellent <br /><br />I`ll be very surprised if this movie doesn`t get any complaints after being broadcast on BBC2 at teatime . Captain Saint Ives lies in bed with a prostitute where a nipple is fully exposed and there`s a scene of French prisoners bathing that includes full frontal male nudity not to mention a murder scene where blood is clearly seen . You really do have to worry if BBC schedulers have any type of clue as to what they`re doing


I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by 'coldshitaction' and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy.


In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled 'Flicker Flashbacks' in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the 'Flicker Flashbacks' people, but higher-toned series such as 'Silents, Please' treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.

I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.

Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to 'stretch-print' them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.

It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The 'stretch-printing' is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.

Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called 'Bound for Texas' sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.

It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works.