I found this to be an entertaining account of the challenges an independent film maker might encounter (something I never even thought about). The film managed to keep my interest the entire time and I actually laughed out loud more than once! I'm not a film maker so I know nothing about the technology but I though it was well edited and flowed smoothly telling the story. As a disclaimer, I contributed to this effort after the fact providing music for the soundtrack but I was not involved in the creation of this film and I could not tell you a thing about Repo Man except that I remembered seeing it way back when (I'm not really a sci-fi fiend). I enjoyed the comparisons the film made of punk rock file making to punk rock music. My wife went with me to see the film and she did not know a thing about it before hand and we had a great time.


This epic brings together a superbly-gifted cast and crew, a narrative depth superior to most novels, wonderful music, philosophy and a connection to LIFE that I find difficult to explain. To immerse oneself in Die Zweite Heimat is for me akin to a spiritual experience, similar to the awe one gets when looking at the stars in a clear night sky. The language, and use of both colour and monochrome segments adds to the dramatic impact. The film inspired me to go to Munich and visit some of the locations, including the Edgar Reitz office. From then on, I vowed to improve my German skills - after Die Zweite Heimat I feel almost German, as if I am in the head of the characters. I also try to match the piano playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann), but this is the one thing that will always elude me ! This drama is unparalleled and I have been fortunate to see it on BBC2 in the UK and SBS in Australia. The sequel, Heimat 3, is currently being filmed in Germany.


When the new Outer Limits first started, the episodes were quite optimistic and challenging. As the series began to wind down, most of the episodes became just plain ugly and devoid of any entertainment value. The six episodes here reflect the very best, and worst, of the series.

Since The Outer Limits always preaches a moral. I would like to offer my own. Starting with the most entertaining to the flops.

1. Afterlife: As an institution, The U.S.A. military-industrial complex is both evil and paranoid, not to mention plain stupid. However, individuals with great integrity do serve our country, and they will obey their conscience even at a mind-boggling cost! In the end, the aliens don't need to say a word. Those without a conscience are fools who are to be held in utter contempt!

A truly subversive episode! One that should be shown on prime time television for all to see! This might be a revelation for some, but folks without a conscience should not be allowed to serve in our military! Nor do the ends justify the means!

2. Relativity Theory: A good person may be forced to make a split-second decision between good or evil in order to save the lives of defenseless intelligent beings, and at great cost to one's self. What makes this decision all the more difficult is the stark choice: Being marooned with exotic alien strangers who you can't even communicate with except through gestures, or going along with a group of people you think will keep you safe from unknown dangers even if they are ruthless, and devoid of compassion!

This episode is brilliant! What fuels this depravity is good old fashioned greed. This episode is one of the most scathing indictments of capitalism, transnational corporations and raping the environment, I have ever seen in my lifetime! Unlike real life, justice here is served - and swiftly!

One of the most memorable lines is when the ruthless corporate thug said something to the effect, 'We did the same thing in the Amazon Rainforest War.' Alluding to the killing of Amazonian Indians who were attempting to protect their rain forests from being strip mined, as justification for killing again literally in the name of the 'survival of the fittest.' Something Darwin never meant to be taken literally!

3. Alien Shop: Tremendous power can be used for good, even from an exotic alien. This power can be used to heal instead of destroy. Mere mortals can learn from their mistakes! Even a criminal can see the light if given enough opportunity to do so.

Sometimes it takes strong medicine, but we all can wake-up and change our self-destructive ways!

4. The Grell: An alien can be a Christ-like figure! In the distant future, slavery can be justified, once again, in the name of expediency! Basically good people can be corrupted. Sometimes a person needs to be experience great shame in order to see the evil he/she is committing. Children are closer to the truth than adults. Those with political power have tremendous responsibility! Another work of genius! As a species, 'Do human beings learn from history?'

Flop Number 1: Quality of Mercy: Loose Lips, Sinks Ships! When in war kindly keep your mouth shut about important military plans. Gee, did I really need to watch an hour-long soap opera in order to figure this out?!! I wonder, did the makers of The Outer Limits run out of ideas, or did corporate pull the plug? Dark and ugly, serving no purpose, but despair!

Flop Number 2: Beyond The Veil: So bad there is no moral but this: When locked-up in a mental hospital, use some common sense, please! This episode is so bad it disgusts. What an X-Files rip-off! Don't waste your time on this one! You'll thank me later!

It's a sad commentary that The Outer Limits went down the tubes toward the end of its run. Subversive episodes, like the first four, could not last forever! It was a miracle they were made at all! Hopefully, someday, other brave souls will follow the subversive Outer Limits tradition into new territory!

If you happen to be such a daring person, a good place to start is with one unique book: 'Anatomy Of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction,' edited by Neil Barron! As far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive book ever written on the subject.


This movie was definitely scripted with FF VII fans ONLY in mind. I am someone who has never played the original game and watched it with a friend who was a series fan. From a visual and technical standpoint this movie is just as good as 'The Spirits Within', if not better, but from a story standpoint, I was pretty lost. One major plot weakness that stood out to me was the scene where 'all' of the children dying of geostigma were brought to the healing 'reunion' by the three Jenovites. All told there were about 15 kids in all... Hmmmm... I thought that this Geostigma was an illness of pandemic proportions... I understand why they did it that way (time, budget,CPU), but it just seemed cheesy after all the explanation about how the bad guys needed to collect all of those who had Jenova cells so that Jenova could be reincarnated. The subtitle version that we had (some fan sub from the internet) was a pretty direct translation and therefore probably added to my confusion.

It did prick my interest in FF VII however, and I spent a few hours on the FF VII wiki reading about the main characters and the plot. Once I read the Advent Children wiki, things made a lot more sense. If you are a video game or Sci-Fi fan this movie is a pretty good flick, but like a previous review said, it comes off like a 90 minute fight scene. You never really get to know any of the characters, and the story does just seem to jump from scene to scene without much explanation, even though some explanation just might be required. Thank goodness for wikpedia.


With movies like this you know you are going to get the usual jokes concerning ghosts. Eva as a ghost is pretty funny. And the other actors also do a good job. It is the direction and the story that is lacking. That could have been overlooked had the jokes worked better. The problem only is that there aren't many jokes. Sure I laughed a couple of times. Apart from the talking parrot there wasn't an ounce of creativity to be noticed in the movie. I blame the director not using the premise to it's full potential. Eva certainly has the comedic skill to show more but did not get the opportunity to do so. Overall this movie is ideal for a Sunday afternoon. Other than that it can be skipped completely.


The film is very fast-moving, bizarre and colorful, it's like Mad Max on speed whit tons of colorers and make-up. Also very Cartoonish, as that said; cartoon sequence pops up here and there. The plot is also very saucy, but I'll believe it's meant too be. The thing that really drives me crazy in this movie, is the characters, they are painfully irritating, especially Rebecca played by Lori Petty, she's really annoying (I'll believe she is the most annoying creature I've ever seen). The editing is also annoying, very MTV stylized. Another thing that's missing from Tank Girl is an exciting adventure. The humor isn't much funny either. It has some nice visuals though.

However a lot of people love this film, most of them are women, and that's not weird at all, because this movie is all about girl power.. Tank Girl this is a real chick flick, and the best example of an hate/love film.


I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie. There was some good stunt work that gave a fair degree of excitement and suspense to the story. One did however have to suspend ones credulity on a number of occasions for the plot to work. For example despite losing their transfer cable, couplings and harness when the pilot retracted the undercarriage manually, they fortunately found a spare on-board the aircraft complete with Caribbeans. According to the plot drilling a hole in the ceiling of the vault would disable the alarm system in the vault when the system was reactivated (I can't think why), according to Daltry there battery operated drill would be unable to drill through the vault ceiling however they just happened to have a hydraulic drill complete with hoses and fittings to fit the equally convenient take off points in the planes hydraulic system located above the vault. As the plane has a closed hydraulic system it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without affecting the control systems or at least setting hydraulic pressure alarms in the cockpit. Accepting this for the sake of the plot it takes them several minutes to drill a small hole through the top of the vault (tension will they be able to drill through before FED's get there to check the false alarm), yet from the time the vault door closed and before the FED's had walked the few feet to the second security door they had cut a squire hole in the roof of the vault big enough for them to get through. One can accept all theses and other inconsistencies for the sake of a good yarn, however what spoiled the movie for me was when what appears to have been an effort by the script writers to discuses what up to that point was a fairly predictable ending, they killed off the two hero's (If one can refer to crocks as hero's) Ketchum & Brooks one was shot and thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet the other wiliest sliding down the cable between the two planes the villain Daltry with one hand manages to unhook the cable carrying the weight of a full grown man with the air pressure of several hundred miles per hour pressing on him, and letting him fall to his death. And yet in the next sequence these two without any kind of explanation (however tenuous or implausible) have miraculously survived the full from 10.000 feet and had time to set up an elaborate scam to get the money. The only comment on there survival was to Sophie that her brother is a bad shot. Don't expect an Oscar nomination for this one.


This movie is AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!


The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!


Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.

Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.

You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.

As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...


King of Queens is comic genius. Kevin James, whom plays IPS deliveryman Doug Heffernan is extremely funny, Leah Remini who plays Doug's wife Carrie is incredibly hot ( # 19 on Stuff magazine's hottest 102 woman list ), and very funny. The true magic of the show However is the scenes with Jerry Stiller, they are the funniest in the show. Jerry, a comic genius, plays Carrie's father, Arthur Spooner, whom lives in Doug and Carrie's always cold basement. I must admit that I never watched this show until this year, 2006. Whenever I had flipped by it previously it never seemed funny, but with the cancellation of Friends, Still Standing, and Yes Dear, I needed some new comedy. Actually giving The King Of Queens a chance I discovered that it was absolutely fantastic. So funny in fact that I downloaded the first 7 seasons and watched each season in 8 hour blocks. I strongly urge anyone whom has not seen this treasure to check it out. You will not be disappointed.


A real disappointment from the great visual master Ridley Scott. G.I. Jane tells the story of a first female ever to go through the hellish training at the Navy SEALs. The training is the most difficult and hard in existence as the instructor says in the film to the lead character O'Neil played by Demi Moore. There is no particular message or point in this film or then I couldn't reach it properly. It may be a some kind of a statement of female rights and abilities but it all sinks under the tired scenes and stupid gun fight at the end of the film.

I really can't understand why Ridley uses so much zooms in that mentioned last gun battle at the desert?! It looks sooooo stupid and irritating and almost amateurish so I would really like to know what the director saw in that technique. When I look at his latest film, Black Hawk Dawn, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the battle scenes (which are plenty) and they are very intense and directed with skill. The whole finale in G.I. Jane looks ugly and is nothing more but stupid and brainless shooting and killing.

This is Ridley Scott's worst movie in my opinion and there are no significant touches from which this great director is known. Still I'm glad I saw this in Widescreen format because there are still couple of great scenes and samples of Scott's abilities, but they are very few in this film.

A disappointment and nothing compared to the classics (Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Alien and so on..) of this talented director. So I'm forced to give G.I. Jane 4/10.


Scary.. Yes Scary!! Jam-packed with nudity (from fat people to skinny people), Maslin Beach takes place on a nudist beach in S.A.

I first saw this film two years ago - it's safe to say it made a bizarre topic of discussion at school the next day. This film was horrible! Hardly a romantic comedy - just a showcase of nudity! This movie hit its lowpoint with one of the new-age characters staring down between a girls legs.

Girl: You're not going to find God in there! Guy: Nah, But I think I found heaven.

Steer clear of this one, unless you want to hear amateur actors discuss topics such as farting, adultery and the process of superlguing one's genitals together. AVOID!


It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.

Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.

A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.

I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.

Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.


Biographical tale of the life of Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic in 1927, aboard his plane the Spirit of St Louis.

While not amongst Director Billy Wilder's best films it does boast some very impressive production values especially for a film made 50 years ago. The story is well told and the performances are also good though not outstanding.

One definite limiting factor upon the storytelling is that Lindbergh flew alone and without a radio, which meant he has no one to speak with. This necessitated a few different story telling techniques such as internal monologues, speaking with a housefly, and the occasional bouts of talking to himself especially once the exhaustion sets in. Also in order to avoid an extended sequence of the famous flight, it is interspersed with flashbacks from his life and the methodical preparations for the flight.

Charles Lindbergh was a huge hero of his era but his controversial beliefs would taint his legacy somewhat. Despite this he would continue to contribute to the aviation field and assisted as a civilian aircraft consultant to the US effort in WWII.

Jimmy Stewart certainly had the flying background to back his portrayal of Lindbergh. He rose to the rank of Colonel in US Air Force during WWII and while in the reserves following the War would reach the rank of Brigadier General.


I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality. Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose.

Also helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it.


French film directors continue to amaze with their extraordinary ability to simulate the sights and sounds of ordinary, everyday suburban life. This was readily apparent with the release early in 2002 of L'Emploi du temps ( Time Out ) , a brilliant character study of of a white collar worker's descent into melancholy after having been fired from his job. As is the penchant of French filmmakers , many scenes were shot on real streets and in public places, giving a cinema verite feel to the story , yet L'Emploi du temps also possessed an elegant look thanks to excellent camera work and some stunning location footage ( most notably a Swiss mountain retreat ). Running fairly on the heels of that masterful movie comes another impressive French production, Jacques Audiard's gritty crime caper, Sur mes levres ( Read My Lips ). Actually, to tag this film a crime caper does it a disservice because it is so much more than that. As with the earlier French release, it is an incisive character study of marginal people using their wits to get ahead in a society that has turned its back on them. In a Paris construction firm Carla, a shy, diminutive young woman sits at her desk, sequestered to an area of the office that is a major pathway to the xerox machines and restrooms.

Obnoxious coworkers use the front of Carla's desk to chat and drop off their half-finished Styrofoam cups of coffee. Partially deaf, Carla turns her hearing aids on and off at will if noise becomes bothersome, be it the drone of the paper copiers or the shrill crying of a friend's baby. When her boss calls her into the office to suggest that she hire a secretarial assistant to help her with the work load, Carla fears she may lose her job. At the employment office Carla lists the specifications she wants for her assistant (preferably male) as if she were at a Personals Agency. He should be 25 years old and clean -cut , with extensive computer and filing skills. When the agency sends over an unkempt , menacing looking young man, Carla is both shocked and intrigued. They leave the office and have lunch at a local eatery, where Carla interviews her prospective assistant. When she finds out that he has just gotten out of prison , Carla initially wants nothing to do with Paul, but has a change of heart and hires him on. Although she is basically kind toward her helper, Carla now finds herself in a position of authority and possessing a newfound sense of power. Paul learns quickly and becomes an able worker. Carla helps Paul find a temporary place to live and even covers for him when his parole officer shows up one day at the office wondering why Paul missed his appointment. During one of their lunch breaks Carla informs Paul of her hearing deficiency and reveals her ability to read lips. Later, when an avaricious coworker blatantly takes over a project Carla has been working on, a furious Carla asks Paul's help in seeking revenge on the man. From here on in Sur mes levres becomes an increasingly intense crime drama escalating into some of the most violently graphic scenes that have been shown on the screen in recent years. The screenplay borrows elements from Hitchcock, most notably REAR WINDOW, where Carla's lip-reading talent comes into full play using a pair of binoculars. There is a teasing, on-again, off-again sexual attraction between the two protagonists that culminates in a rather strange homage to NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but it works because of the considerable sexual heat that builds slowly between the two stars. That being said, what one carries away from this movie isn't so much the similarities to classic Hitchcock thrillers, although those elements are definitely there, but the pervasive view a of a modern day city (in this case Paris) where life runs the gamut from mundane workdays to a boozy, garish nightlife where sex, drugs and laundered money infiltrate the lives of several characters. Unlike Hollywood productions, this is a psychological suspense yarn where the people look like the everyday man and woman on the street, where a punch in the face or groin sounds like a sickening thud and where the office is a place to be feared. It's Hitchcock with the gloves off.


John Singleton's finest film, before blockbuster wannabees like the Shaft remake, this is a thought-provoking movie with overall great acting and superb balance between the stories 3 main characters, each with identifiable youngster problems.

What I liked about it most is that it also covers the problem of selfpity among young blacks, a problem mostly ignored by the media and other films who mostly focus on social-economical problems and racism by whites. This movie shows that blacks can be equally ignorant and racist.

The masterful thing about this film is that it deals with so many topics without getting shallow. It's not just about racism, but about how hard it can be to adopt to a new world (college), date rape, discovering sexuality and isolation. Omar Epps, Michael Rapaport and Kristy Swanson each deliver fine performances, and the supporting cast is equally interesting with Jennifer Connelly as a lez (yay) and with Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes as college bums causing little riots.

The only negative is the caricature of a professor by Laurence Fishburne ('Peppermint?'). Surely, plenty of professors are nutty. But they're not as flat. The skinheads are also a bit of a caricature, but I guess they are like that too in real life.

Overall a great underrated piece of filmwork, if you liked American History X you'll love this one.

8,5 out of 10


This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.

The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).

Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.

This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.

The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.

Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.

The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.


The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.

That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.

Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.


This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.

As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien

Plot: *1/2 out of ****

Sex/nudity: *** out of ****


A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was 'agonizing,' the child's looks of shock were 'unrealistic,' and the fat friend was 'irritating.' Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it!


Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.

Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera  the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.

Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.


Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.


Aaron Spelling produced this made for television western that gets awfully plotty for a seventy three minute film. It plays like a probable failed series pilot.

Handsome Clint Walker is U.S. Marshal Dave Harmon, who wanders into Yuma, Arizona Territory in time to kill one of the brothers of the local bigwig rancher who is out on a trail drive.

Walker takes the other brother to jail. Walker also meets a 'cute' homeless Mexican kid who sleeps at the jailhouse. One night, Andres is snoozing when a villain and another man dressed in Army blue take the remaining brother into the street and kill him, pinning the murder on Walker. Not good for your first twenty four hours on the job. Walker visits the local Army fort, and rankles the chains of the commander. The bigwig hears of his brothers' deaths, and rides back to town in time to get his chains rankled as well. The local native population, who get short changed by the Army on their beef, also get rankled in the chains area. With all these chains getting rankled, Walker still has time to woo the local hotel owner. The Army guy involved in the murder ends up dead, the local cattle buyer is implicated, the indians do a lot of hesitant speechifying, and the climax brings about an unlikely showdown as Walker must prove to the town that the villainous cattle buyer had a boss, someone we have suspected as being too helpful all along.

There is a semi-subplot involving the death of Walker's family at the hands of Army raiders, and I think this would have been the force behind the series, had it been picked up. Instead, the film ends abruptly, and I kept waiting for scenes from next week's exciting episode. Because of the fade outs for nonexistent commercial breaks, the pacing is all off on this and its story jumps in fits.

Walker is handsome, rugged, and has a voice deeper than a well. The rest of the cast is full of television actors you have probably seen in other television movies. Much of the action is pretty lame, and the violence is tepid. The first brother killed gets a shotgun blast midtorso, and falls without a scratch on him. I did not expect 'Reservoir Dogs,' but this is the wrong film to use to teach children about the evil of guns! Speaking of children, the Mexican kid here goes from 'cute' to 'aneurysm inducing annoyance' very quickly.

If you dislike westerns, then you will dislike 'Yuma.' If you like westerns, then you will still dislike 'Yuma.' I cannot recommend it.

This is unrated, but contains physical violence and gun violence.


Although there is melodrama at the center or rather at the bottom of this film, the story is told beautifully and subtly and the acting is superb.

Yaara, studying at Princeton, returns to her native Israel for the funeral of her oldest and dearest friend, Talia. Because Yaara practically lived with her friend's parents after the death of her own mother, she has lost her adoptive sister. And because Yaara, blind from birth, has been guided and guarded by Talia, her friend's suicide is as unbearable as it is inexplicable.

Inevitably, the blind girl is the one who determines to solve the mystery of this death. Though without sight, she has insight. Though she cannot see, she is able to find what is out of sight than the 'normal' people around her. The film thus becomes an absorbing mystery as Yaara scours for clues in memories of her relationship with Talia, in her adoptive family's house, in tapes, diaries, and people in Talia's past and present.

Told from Yara's point of view, the film is also seen from her point of view, as she visualizes what she hears, believes, and imagines. The solution to the mystery is rather conventional, but the search is conducted with such subtle care and the answer rendered so beautifully and without fanfare, that the pat moment is easily forgiven. The truths emerge gradually yet inexorably, clarifying not only Talia's life, but also her relationship with Yaara. Tali Sharon, as Yaara, uses her mobile face and voice effectively, and is utterly believable as both the adult and teenage girl. We accept fully her ability by the film's end to find her place in the world more confidently.

Noteworthy is the precision by which places and actions are repeated with small but significant variations that never become tedious, the dead-on acting by the minor characters, and the interesting decision to represent Talia only as a teenager. I will quibble with Yaara's final declaration as stands with Gadi, Talia's last boyfriend, at a cliff's edge, but that trip to the edge is so fascinating that the image will remain in sight longer than her words will be recalled.


For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the 'Second Renaissance' shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.

What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, 'God' is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by 'Man's own image'.

As far as the shorts go in the collection, 'The Second Renaissance: Part I' is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become 'the architect of its own destruction.' Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.

--PolarisDiB


Any fan of Russian cinema will have great difficulty in believing the sub-par performances phoned-in by Mashkov and Bodrov Jr., and will perhaps be utterly perplexed by Bodrov Sr.'s hackneyed and confusing script, which is coupled with uncharacteristically weak direction. Most of the characters wander through the movie as though they have no idea who they are or what they are doing. It is also sad to see that Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting skills have not advanced one iota since FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and her screen exposure is mercifully limited. This is a terrible mafia movie; so much so that it makes the GODFATHER III look like a winner in the genre. To see the key Russians at their best, check out Bodrov Sr.'s work on PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS (which also features Jr.), Mashkov's turn in VOR (THE THIEF), and Bodrov Jr.'s new criminal in BRAT.


This movie has a lot to recommend it. The paintings, the music, and David Hewlett's naked butt are all gorgeous! The plot, a story of redemption, forgiveness, and courage in the face of adversity is also very interesting and touching -- and it's not predictable, which is saying quite a lot about a movie in this day and age. But, the acting is mediocre, the direction is confusing, and the script is just odd. It often felt like it was trying to be a parody, but I never figured out what it was trying to be parody *of*. And if it's not a parody, well, it remains a movie with great potential that it didn't live up to.


Or anyone else have noticed the fact that first bunch of episodes are inspired too much by 90's flicks?

I mean seriously wife who is trying get someone else to murder his rich husband so she can claim his assets. Med students who are temporarily stopping their hearts to reach memories that are lost; Flatliners. Bunch of college bodies getting together again to reminisce on the old days but are not fully comfortable because they did something in the past, Very Bad Things? Groundhog day is one of my all time favorite movies. Sadly enough the writing staff behind his turd is bunch of lazy bastards who can not come up with their original scripts.

Noble idea totally fubarred in it's execution.


This movie was horrible.

They didn't develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. It was a definite sleeper. You'd expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but D-Wars surprises you with even a let down in that department.

Also, the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. And I seriously mean that.

I was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad!!! Please, whatever you do people, don't waste your time and money on a crappy movie like D-Wars.


If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,

just people with a sense of humor.

For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it.


Subtle, delicate ,touching.

A young man in a summer dress on a bike like incarnation of perfect joy. History of a coming -out and anatomy of relationship.

Soft ambiguous gestures, slices of desire and a day like space of innocent miracle expression.

Two men, a girl, a afternoon on beach, some words and a gift. Religious traces and a pantheist vision. Cercle of light and expression, nooks of an ordinary day and hot evening.

A erotic chaste film in which the gay identity or the first sexual relation are only instruments for good definition of a universe with sensitives values.

Pledge for self- discover, universe of beauty exploration, the sign of Ozon and same nostalgic air of every creation, 'Robe d'ete' is a splendid occasion to understand the moment like projection of dream, to look, with emotion and child soul the essence of the essence beyond the images or people.


'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.

The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.


The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.


I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better.

The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.

THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without.

To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.


Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.


I doubt Jigsaw was hip even at the time, the whole LSD theme married to a murder mystery being a patently obvious attempt to grab a young audience of the era without in the least truly showing any understanding of the sixties counterculture. The dated aspect aside, Jigsaw suffers from many problems, including overwrought acting, silly and stilted dialogue, LSD flashbacks that go on interminably long even after the point has been hammered home in the first 60 seconds, a failure to create any true suspense even though the actual plot is, on paper, a great vehicle to do just that, and an ending that is so trite and predictable (not to mention reminiscent of a lot of bad television shows) that the climax is actually an anti-climax. If it was a better movie, we might be able to suspend disbelief on a few things where it would help enjoyment, but the weaknesses are so glaring they only serve to highlight the improbabilities viewers might otherwise overlook. I saw Jigsaw on television and it is definitely late night TV fare meant to fill airspace and pass the time to kill somebody's insomnia rather than anything anybody ought to actively seek out. At very best, a three out of 10.


The idea of In the Name of the People is good, a murderer doesn't want his only daughter to end up in an institution and asks the parents of the girl he killed to take care of his daughter. And you could expect of the actors, especially Scott Bakula to do some good acting, unfortunately they don't! In the Name of The People turns out to be the regular Friday night tearjerker. The flashbacks with the girl that was killed are pretty pathetic and at a certain stage you can just predict what the actors will say... If you want to watch a good film about this subject then watch Dean Man Walking!


This picture was banned from American movies houses in the 1930 because of nudity by Hedy Lamarr, (Eva Hermann) which caused all kinds of problems among the ladies in the 1930's but not so much for the male population. This story concerns a young woman named Eva Hermann who gets married to an older man and is carried over the threshold on the wedding night and the husband never consummates the marriage and worries about all kinds of very petty things like his shoes and killing bugs. Eva leaves her husband's house and lives with her father and tries to explain her situation. On a hot Summer day Eva takes a ride on her horse and decides to go for a swim naked in a lake in the woods. Her horse runs off and she runs after him and is observed by a young man who finds her clothes and returns them to Eva. These two people become very acquainted and there is a romance that starts to bloom. There are many more interesting problems that arise as you view this film to its very end. Enjoy a great Classic film which was a Shocker Film in 1933. Enjoy.


If you haven't already seen this movie of Mary-Kate and Ashley's, then all I can say is: 'What Are You Waiting For!?'. This is yet another terrific and wonderful movie by the fraternal twins that we all know and love so much! It's fun, romantic, exciting and absolutely breath-taking (scenery-wise)! Of course; as always, Mary-Kate and Ashley are the main scenery here anyway! Would any true fan want it any other way? Of course not! Anyway; it's a great movie in every sense of the word, so if you haven't already seen it then you just have to now! I mean right now too! So what are you waiting for? I promise that you won't be disappointed! Sincerely, Rick Morris


The worst movie in the history of cinema. I don't know if it was trying to be funny or sad, poignant or droll, but the end result was unwatchable. Everyone from Key Grip, to Robin Williams, and back down to Best Boy should be ashamed to be a part of this film!


If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!


Why take a perfectly good original drama, based on a perfectly good novel, and remake it as a quasi-musical? And cast it with actors exclusively lacking in singing or dancing talent? Somewhat akin to 'Showgirls' or the two most recent 'Star Wars' films, 'Lost Horizon' is full of unintentional laughs. Who can forget Sir John Gielgud smiling uneasily in his Dali Lhama outfit, overseeing an interpretive dance to the Republican party ('Family')?

Or Sally Kellerman warbling lovingly to George Kennedy, doing her best Cher impression as she hops from one rock to another ('Every Little Thing You Do')? And my favourite, Bobby Van embodying the strength of America's education system ('Question Me An Answer')? I can't wait for the DVD release, as hopefully it will contain comments by Liv Ullmann, who will finally explain what she was thinking when she agreed to do this film!


I look at this page, and it seems disapproving to me to have to listen to someone ramble and rant at a real classic. Sure, I agree to let everyone have their opinion, but here's mine:

This movie should not be missed by any classic horror watcher, and should be seen many casual viewers around the world. Sure, it has lost some of it's flair and greatness with age, especially in todays world of CGI effects, but that's not why you should like it.

You should like it because it actually is a scary movie, even for today's standards. It's overall ickyness will creep you out just as much as the original audiences, so don't slam a classic if you haven't given it a chance. Watch it, but not with a critical attitude. Watch it to have fun, how it was originally intended.


This started bad, got worse, and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the DVD to the person we borrowed it off and choke the C**T to death with it. Avoid this film, a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots, would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen Jenna Jameson naked a million times. If anyone feels the need to watch this film, i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately, as an example i would say trying to cram a Lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. I hear that this film was not the original version, i would very much like to view the original, as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot, and apparently most of the nudity, can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with Christian Viel he owes me an hour of my life back!


Hick Trek is clearly a film that is envious of even an El Mariachi-level budget ($7,000). Still, the creators are able to pull off decent effects at times (often due to great editing) such as the beamings, the situations aboard the cat ship, and Slim T. Jerk's unique way of communicating with his ship without use of a traditional communication device.

The acting does have its rough spots but the portrayal of 'Horns' McBoy is excellent and Fluffy is certainly not too hard on the eyes.

I do wish that the film had been longer than its approximate hour - and that should be seen as a compliment. This movie is a success due to the sincerity and hard work of those involved.


I was rooting for this film as it's a remake of a 1970s children's TV series 'Escape into Night' which, though chaotic and stilted at times was definitely odd, fascinating and disturbing. The acting in 'Paperhouse' is wooden, unintentionally a joke. The overdubs didn't add tension they only reinforced that I was sat watching a botch. Casting exasperated the dreary dialogue which resulted in relationships lacking warmth, chemistry or conviction. As in most lacklustre films there are a few good supporting acts these people should be comforted, consoled and reassured that they will not be held responsible. Out of all the possible endings the most unexpected was chosen ... lamer than I could have dreamt.

'Escape into Night' deserves a proper remake, written by someone with life experience and directed with a subtle mind.


I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about.

The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.

One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.

The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.

Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.


I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and really didn't begin to love the show until Season 4 started. This episode 'Hush' was view by me alone in the dark just after Midnight with my windows open and the wind blowing through furiously by an after storm. The writers of this episode did an excellent job scaring the heck out of me. I was in awe the entire episode which I just finished 2 minutes ago. Amazing doesn't touch the surface of what this episode accomplishes with almost no dialogue. If you've never given this show much thought at least watch this episode. If this doesn't impress you then no episode probably will.

BTW My Heart is still racing...


'GOOD TIMES,' in my opinion, is a must-see CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it. It's hard to say which one is my favorite. Also, I really love the theme song. If you ask me, even though I like everyone, it would have been nice if everyone had stayed on the show throughout its entire run. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen on TV Land now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.


This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.

I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most 'A-pictures' of the day.


I heard a few friends one day saying that 'Scarface sucks... some idiot tried to make another Godfather set in the early 80s.' Now, I usualy listen to idiots/watch CNN so I decided I'd stay away from it. Then my mate handed me the DVD and said 'This is #1 with the pelicangs', confused I tried it. This IS THE BEST FILM EVER MADE. It's more realistic than all this crap about racing stolen cars that are too expensive for someone in that area could afford (*cough2Fast2Furiouscough*) There is some humor though... i.e. the Pelicangs and the light 80s music. Still, whats better than Al Pacino wielding an m203? I give this a ***** out of ****, perfect for fans of Al or GTA:Vice City.


'Nada' was the most inadequate follow-up to 'Les NOces Rouges' which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) 'Nada' is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;its previous work 'les Noces Rouges' had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces.'Nada' includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses ('la Belle Equipe' 'Panique') ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.

With 'Nada' this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be 'Violette Nozières' before he was again at the top of his game.


With No Dead Heroes you get stupid lines like that as this woefully abysmal action flick needs to be seen to be believed. William Sanders is saved by his buddy Harry Cotter during an extraction in Vietnam but gets himself captured by the enemy. Fast forward ten years and Harry is now a brainwashed Russian operative with a mind control microchip implanted in his brain. His new Russian superior is Ivan played to the obscene hilt by Nick Nicholson who might I add not only doesn't attempt once to speak with a Russian accent but resembles more a gas station attendant in Kentucky with his stained teeth. What is even more absurd is the fact that he was also the dialog coach for this film. Soon William is re-recruited by the CIA to hunt Harry down. He teams up with Barbara, a freedom fighter who has infiltrated Ivan's El Salvador camp and soon the both of them are blowing up half of South America. Some scenes are so jaw droppingly awful that it's a wonder why this film doesn't have more of a cult following. One such scene is the sudden lovemaking in the jungle by William and Barbara accompanied by the most inappropriate catterwalling background music I've ever heard. Who would strip completely nude in the middle of a South American jungle? There is a rape scene that uses the end theme from Blood on Satan's Claw as well. No Dead Heroes is the magic bullet movie champion of all time as one shot leads to multiple kills. In one scene Harry strafes his rifle from behind a rock and kills seven guys. I had to rewind it and count. Hard to find film that has recently gotten the full HD treatment by MGM. Track this movie down and watch it for the sheer silliness that ensues.


From the first scene you are given clues as to what may be going on here. It becomes more and more obvious as the story rolls on. The acting is excellent throughout and these actors touch your soul. Even though I knew what was going to happen I was extremely puzzled by the motive. I'm still puzzled as to why Ben did what he did. We could see in his face 'second thoughts', but the ultimate sacrifice seemed to go against his emotion and feelings. It was a very interesting and touching story but it left me confused. Maybe that was the point of the film. I did like the film and Wil Smith can wrack up another good film choice. This guy knows how to entertain an audience!


slow moving but smart. passes you by as if you lived it. filled with thought provoking Ideas art Race and being cool. that one thing hit me hard was the ideas about the rock n' roll lifestyles.

all the performances were improvised i will say it again ALL THE PERFORMANCES WERE IMPROVISED sounds like a gimmick but its not it makes these characters real and like some one you would hang with. this also an amazing thing when you think about how strong the character are in this film. right from the beginning in the title sequence it immediately establish Ben as an outcast by the way he moves though the crowd

Okay it breaks down like this if your a person who lives the jazz/rocker lifestyle of cool you will like it if your smart and understand great cinema from total crap you will love it and if your both then it might be you fav

but if your none of these then you will probably think its boring and say it doesn't follow 'one line' and write a crap review like Ben_Cheshire


Yet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).

This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of 'Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.

Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a 'so bad it's good' vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.

Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.

My Grade: D


Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.


I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.

My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.

The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.

Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.

This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.


Never mind if 'National Velvet (1944)' is a bit hackneyed and occasionally unconvincing, Clarence Brown's equestrian fable is an endearing and very likable story with a good moral. After achieving modest success through her appearance in 'Lassie Come Home (1943),' young Elizabeth Taylor, age 12, landed her first leading role as Velvet Brown, a passionate schoolgirl with an obsession for horses. Though filmed in California, the story - adapted from a novel by Enid Bagnold - is set in a small township on the English countryside, and full advantage is taken of the Technicolor photography to present the vibrant and handsome landscapes of blue skies and green shrubs. Mickey Rooney takes top billing as Mi Taylor, a misguided ex-jockey with devious intentions, whose relationship with young Velvet reawakens his sense of dignity and opens a new, optimistic chapter in his life. Though he noticeably struggles in one sequence, when he must confess the traumatic experience that led to his fear of horses, Rooney is enjoyable as the surly but passionate young man who must prove his worth.

It is perhaps a good thing that Elizabeth Taylor had those entrancing violet eyes, because her acting abilities, at this young age, were rather limited. Her more emotional sequences, in which she displays courage and integrity in the face of adversity, strike one as being rather hollow, and the touchingly-naive notion that simply 'believing' will accomplish everything is one that has since been repeated ad nauseam by practically every unmemorable inspirational sporting film ever made. Nevertheless, Taylor is bright-eyed and enthusiastic, and she works well with Mickey Rooney, who was no stranger to being a child-star. Anne Revere plays a very important role as Velvet's mother, once a famous athlete, who not only swam the English Channel but was lovingly-trained by none other than Mi Taylor's own father. I liked that Mi was not told about this until the film's final seconds, with Mrs. Brown correctly deciding that the young man would first need to develop his own sense of decency, rather than exploiting the memory of his late father for financial gain, as he would undoubtedly have done at the film's beginning.

The film reaches its climax at the Grand National Sweepstakes, where Velvet has, at the last moment, decided to ride her own horse, the Pi, in the world-famous competition. Under the guise of a Latvian male, she goes on, as expected, to win the race, but is later disqualified - either because she's a girl, or because she tumbled from the horse before she was allowed to dismount (what a stupid rule!). This extended race sequence is exceedingly well-done, effectively capturing the nervous tension of those nerve-racking pre-race seconds, and the confusion of the event that places us in the same position as Rooney's character, stranded behind tall spectators and waiting anxiously for somebody to provide an accurate update. It doesn't really matter that we know it's a stunt double doing most of the difficult riding - in several scenes, we can clearly see a creepy-looking man in a wig - but the positive message remains the same. I'll wager that 'National Velvet' has nurtured the imaginations of millions of young girls over the last sixty years, and it's power to inspire has decreased little with time.


This film is about a single mother who is happy go lucky to the point that she is almost irresponsible, and her sensible teenage daughter who is undergoing adolescent turmoils.

'Anywhere But Here' is an engaging film from beginning to the end. Both Ann and Adele are described well right at the start, so we get to know how different their personalities are. Clashes inevitably ensue, and they are engagingly presented. I find myself so drawn to their state of minds and their circumstances. it is as if I am living their lives, feeling what they are feeling.

Susan Sarandon gives another excellent performance in 'Anywhere But Here'. She is charismatic, happy go lucky, hedonistic, warm and loving all at once. I have always liked Susan Sarandon, and I think she is grossly underrated.

'Anywhere But Here' is a captivating emotional journey.


This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.


This is the greatest example I can think of to prove the theory that when Hollywood runs out of good ideas, they make an awful sequel and ruin the first one. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the first Beastmaster; I even liked the third one pretty good, but this movie is atrocious. I am a huge fantasy/sword & sorcery movie fan and I hated to see such a terrible sequel made to such a classic as the first Beastmaster. So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, where do I begin? First of all, the whole idea of the movie is ridiculous. Dar and his evil older brother Arklon(who was nowhere mentioned in the first movie..Huh?) cross over into our world via a handy dimensional time-portal gate. Ya see, Earth just happens to be on the same parallel interdimentional plane as Dar's world. Whereas with the first movie, you're led to think the movie just takes place in the past, but with this one you're shown it's a completely whole other world altogether...that's just one of the many things I hated about this sequel. It didn't work with 'Masters of the Universe', and it sure doesn't work here either! Movies like this should take place and stay in their own time-line and their usual surroundings. For Christ's sake, what's next? Hercules in New York...er, uh..bad example! Moving on...

Arklon's after a device called a neutron detonator to use as a threat against his enemies to rule his own kingdom. So, it's up to Dar, his ferrets,his eagle,and his tiger(not a spray-painted one this time) to go off and save the world...but along the way they have the help of a young, cool, and hip Senator's daughter who gets caught up in this whole mess and she show's Dar around L.A., takes him for a joyride in her BMW, and helps get him out of tight situations here and there. How convenient right? And speaking of convenient, I found it awfully convenient and easy for Arklon to sneak into a highly guarded military base and get away with a stolen, highly destructive nuclear weapon...even with half the U.S. Army and L.A.P.D. after him....waaaaay to easy, even for an evil barbarian sorcerer from another world. There are sooo many plot holes in this I don't know where to begin; like why did Arklon go to the L.A. zoo for at the end of the movie?!? He absolutely has no reason whatsoever to go there; and wouldn't that be like the last place you'd lure your greatest enemy who just so happens to have the handy ability TO CONTROL ANIMALS?

And don't you just love these kinds of movies where the police are portrayed as total idiots and even with half a dozen cops firing at one guy, they still don't manage to hit him? The police in this movie belong in the 'Police Academy' series! They are about as useful in this movie as reading glasses are for the blind! Even the title of the movie makes no sense: 'Beastmaster 2 : Through the Portal of Time'...they never actually went through a 'time' portal because the movie isn't set in the future of Dar's world, it's set in a parallel world along ours in the astral plane, so they NEVER actually go through time, only a dimensional world along theirs; so NO actual time-travel is involved at all! This movie tries to come off as funny and it does...not because of the humor, but because it's just so bad...and that's putting it mildly. The acting, dialogue, plot, characters, and ending are all so cheesy it's hilarious. What more can I expect from the guy that brought us 'Return of the Swampthing'(another bad sequel)? Sorely missed here is Don Coscarelli's wonderful directing and serious feel of the first one!! Avoid this stinking piece of garbage like the bubonic plague and stick which the first one and maybe the third one if there's nothing better on T.V.


What a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.

The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing.


This film is all right, fairly silly and to be taken lightly. But what I can't stand are the numerous heroes and that boy's ILLEGALY SENTIMENTAL comment near the end: 'look, they all look the same'. Isn't that by far passing the good taste standards? I thought it was revolting, as were the heroic, unselfish acts by some of the people in this film. I'm not saying it won't happen like that, but zooming in on all the bravery like that makes my stomach churn.


This is a very low budget film, set in one location in a valley shielded by the effects of radiation. The cast, an older man and daughter, a handsome visitor, a couple (a tough buy and gal), a drifter, a donkey and a radiation affected man, interact during the after effects of a nuclear blast. Added to this is an entity watching the women take a bath.

They all have guns, some of them get shot, some of them are told to have children, others are murdered and others just drift away and, well this is the movie. Harvey Cormann's first film, it shows a certain simplicity in movie making. To avoid expensive sets, actors go through curtains to enter and exit the house (ie the studio). The location shots filmed in the hills near Hollywood are the backdrop.

I would not say this is worth going out of your way to see, but interesting to see how movies with human subjects were made in the 50s.


I can't add much to what has been said already, except I'm going to have to because of the 10 lines minimum policy.

I've actually got this on a VHS-to-DVD copy, but the quality is quite poor and I desperately need for it to be officially released.

I can just imagine what extras I would like to see (Tim Healy's character swearing his way through one of those 'Football Bloopers' type programmes would be great!). You can imagine it now, can't you? But of course, it looks like most people will have to carry on dreaming about a DVD release.

Surely to God there must be someone in the DVD releases department at ITV who also knows something about British culture, is web savvy and has enough about them to look at IMDb now and again? Oh, well.


As an ex Merchant Seaman I was really interested in this movie : I personally have been involved in a stowaway search on leaving Kingston Jamaica where one person was found. We managed to get him ashore though as we were in territorial limits. On another ship I was on the stowaway was found and we could not land him anywhere due to passport/nationality issues. In fact he stayed on for a year as an almost 'honorary' crew member and worked for his keep. Africa is notorious for stowaway pickups. There is a great scene in the beginning of the film when the bulk carrier enters the African port : her size dwarfing all. The crew pop ashore for a little intercourse and inebriation. So far normal. The drama starts when the stowaways enter the vast cavernous holds of the ship. Joss Ackland is brilliant as the Captain with a drink problem being harassed by his Nemesis Suchet right on form as the Companys representative on board. The stowaway search is classic but we did not have guns. I question the use of guns in this film. This ship seemed to have a vast armoury. In my experience guns at sea are severely restricted due to customs regulations., also having a dog on board was odd.Anti Rabies laws especially in Europe restrict carrying of animal severely. Anyway Pertwee is brilliant as the embittered Mate. The horror which follows the discovery of the victims is unbearable : the grim metallic background of the ships holds and a feeling that there is no where to hide adds to the drama.Some of the freighters crew are not into the murder and those who get involved are gradually sucked in to a world of violence from which there is no escape.The chase through the ship especially the engine room scenes are 'edge on the seat' : the feeling of extreme claustrophobia abounds. The feeling of metal pressing in and death being only a gun barrel away. The film is brutal : my girlfriend had to give up watching it during the shooting and beating scenes. While this goes on Suchet in the comfort of his well appointed cabin gets drunk unaware of the mayhem 3 decks below. Its a tense film, flawed in parts but the real message is that we can all get sucked into violence like this. Slowly and surely. Think of the train drivers who took Jews to Auschwitz, the clerks who worked out those train timetable. I always remember someone who had visited Dachau concentration camp at the end of the war and he said that one of the S.S. Guards had put a bird-table outside the camp crematorium. This film is like that : ordinary people suddenly finding themselves in a world of unstoppable violence!


While John Garfield seems to get the bulk of attention, the true star of Four Daughters is Priscilla Lane. Her performance is the glue that holds the large cast together.

Her ability to interact equally well with John Garfield and the more carefree Jeffrey Lynn is at the core of the success of Four Daughters.


this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.


Pretty good film from Preminger; labyrinthine at times, as it explores sets and locales from various angles and perspectives as if it were a nature film on the denizens of the modern city and how they live. In this sense it is visually and spatially satisfying, as its hero, a good cop with a bad temper, gets into very hot water when he accidentally kills a guy with a plate in his head.

Dana Andrews plays the lead as if it were Hamlet, and has never been better. The story may be pure melodrama but Andrews gives it weight, and almost raises it to the level of tragedy. As his girl, Gene Tierney is attractive but unremarkable. Gary Merrill makes for a very interesting villain, with his natural warmth providing a nice contrast to Andrews' coolness; his smiling, amiable-seeming bad guy seems to be continually challenging his nemesis by the mere fact of his being emotionally open, as opposed to the tightly wound and moralistic cop who is pursuing him.

There are no major surprises in this film, which seems transitional for all concerned. For director Preminger it is a reunion of sorts with his Laura stars, Andrews and Tierney, who were passing their career peaks at around the time the movie was made. The supporting cast,--Merrill, Karl Malden, Neville Brand--are, understandably, more optimistic, as they were all on their way up. Preminger, as serene an observer as ever, lets the events unfold without expressing a strong point of view, as the morally ambiguous ending is somewhat disappointing, for the cat and mouse game between the two antagonists seems larger and more archetypal than any mere movie could contain, much less resolve.


One of my favourite films. It has everything - rocking soundtrack, courtesy of Eddie Clark, ex Motorhead, loads of action, loads of laughs, totally ridiculous plot and the most wonderful '80's stereotypes as characters. Eddie, the put-upon nice guy, who just wants to be left alone to be different, Leslie (about as wet as they come), Nuke (the rock burn-out), Eddie's Mom (pathetic), Roger (the geek) and Ozzy as the preacher (surely he exists in America?). Then there are the boys (rich, vicious and stupid) and the girls (vacant, vain and stupid). What more could you ask for?

Well, first of all, there's Sammi Curr, the rock star, an amalgam of every '80's badass rocker you can think of. What about that rocket firing guitar? Then there's the scene where Sammi pulls the old lady through the TV screen and smashes her up. And what does Roger do? Why, hoover her up, just like a good geek would. My favourite scene is where Tim Hainey gets his long overdue reward from Sammi via the wet finger in the plug - magic!

If you were into rock in the '80's or just love ridiculous films like I do, then check this one out. It's available on DVD and very cheap so (trick or)treat yourself.


The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.


Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only 'The Optimists of Nine Elms' and 'Being There' have impressed me of those I have seen.

That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see 'Carlton Browne' and 'Heavens Above!' - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, 'There's a Girl in My Soup' really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.

Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing 'charm' as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in 'Lolita'.

There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a 'vehicle' for Sellers' undisputed talents.

Rating:- * 1/2/*****


Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.


It's a good show, and I find it funny. Finally the bad Latin stereo types are over! ¡Gracias, Señor Lopez! I love this show, and I just started watching it about three months ago. The whole concept about a Latin family TV show really amazed me. I am surprised that finally Latinos have a good shot to be on TV. This show is probably one the best I've seen, it's funny, heartwarming, touchy, and nice.


This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.

This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.


I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C)