/* slight spoilers */

Way back, before Evangelion was made, before Hideaki Anno was an idol and household name for many anime fans, and before Gainax had reached the status of fanfavorite, Gunbuster was made. With only Wings of Honneamise made by Gainax at that time, and the famous Otakon shorts or course, Gunbuster had some tough acts to follow up. It didn't make it easier on itself by picking out a genre that was already done countless times before, space opera.

Luckily, Gainax decided to put it out as a six-part OAV (direct to video) series. This allows the series to have a bigger scope than would have been possible if it was made into a film. This also prevents it from becoming too boring and overly long, with lots of pointless battles and filler along the way. Besides that, they made some effort to stay clear from the tested space opera mechanics used in Macross or Gundam, and many other popular space operas.

For one, the shows starts out pretty light, with Noriko in the Okinawa High School for mechapiloting. Noriko is the daughter of a respected ship commander who died in battle, when she was still a little kid. This makes her life at the academy quite hard, as some of her fellow classmates start to suspect that Noriko is favored by the professors. The first episode is pretty much a comedy drama, with a very tight focus on the characters and setting of the school. Things quickly change when the threat of an alien invasion is announced, and Noriko and Kazumi (best girl in class) are chosen to help the assembled fleet out.

The middle bulk of Gunbuster leaves our female lead in space, focusing on both personal drama and action. A couple more characters are introduced, and parts of Noriko's past are dragged up again. Besides that, the alien threat becomes more imminent every minute, and the Gunbuster, mankind's final hope, is presented. Smart as writer Okada was, he incorporated the principles of time dilation, to spice things up a bit. In short, time moves slower for those who travel at the speed of light. This means that Noriko can be part of a war that takes almost a century to complete. Also the dramatic aspect of this is accentuated, when Noriko sees her friends again on her return to base, who have aged considerably more than her. The science might not be perfect, but it's presented in a pretty believable way, with even some SD science theatre shorts in between the episodes, where Noriko, Kazumi and their coach give a short description of the scientific principles used in the series.

The animation, for a series made in the 80s, is definitely good. The designs are retro 80s style of course, but it has it's charm. Animation is fluent enough and the character designs are nice, although the costumes do betray

some of the fanservice fascination Gainax will later exploit to the fullest. The mechas throughout the shows are pretty cool too, with the Gunbuster as the ultimate killing machine, strong and vast. The last episode was entirely done in black and white. While it's generally believed (but not confirmed) that this was done for budget reasons, it lends a whole different atmosphere to the series, which is suited perfectly for the latter part.

The music is very typical space opera fair. Too bombastic in places, very generic, and definitely not worth buying. It does fit the series for the most part, but it can become quite annoying at times. Tanaka is not really a famous composer, and the only other respectable series he's worked on is Dragon Half. If you think 80s anime music, you will know what to expect.

As the series progresses, the focus slowly shifts from drama to space opera to epic battle, but in such a way the viewer will hardly notice this. Step by step the drama will be toned down, and the battles will take the front row. Neither aspect is ever left completely out though. With the last episode in sight, Noriko and crew are fighting for the further existence of human kind, and with the last battle in sight, certain questions are presented to the audience, concerning to position of the human race in the galaxy, and how far it can go to guarantee self-preservation. While they are never answered later on, they still present some interesting food for thought. The last episode is very epic, with a nice, but quite predictable ending, though not all endings should contain numerous outlandish twists of course. Again, it fits the series.

Gunbuster may sound like your average space opera anime at first, with alien invasions, huge battles, and some personal drama, and for the bigger part, it is. But it is done exceptionally well for a change. Instead of going for a steady mix of former elements, six episodes long, Gunbuster presents us a change from small scale drama to large scale epic heroism. Along the way we meet with some various interesting and well fleshed-out characters, which mutual relationships changing heavily due to the time dilation phenomenon. The show is very tightly written, although it does tend to slip up at some points. Overly dramatic occurrences and too cheesy mecha attacks could have been easily avoided. Overall, the trip Gunbuster takes you on is a very relaxed, sometimes sad, sometimes heroic one. It might not have shattered the boundaries and limits of the space opera genre, but at least it bend them a little. Highly enjoyable anime classic, but not without flaws.

***/*****


I just watched that movie, and was pretty disappointed. I didn't expect much to begin with as the premise of the movie doesn't suggest greatness anyway. Sadly, it doesn't even manage to deliver just as stupid entertainment. The main problem is probably the acting. While I've seen far worse actors in far worse movies, the story would require some people to act out as violent maniacs, some others as people caught a in really stressing predicament, and they fail to deliver that. Although I watched the German release I watched with the original audio, so it's definitely not just bad voice-overs or anything like that. Added to that, the German DVD release seems to be cut, the killings are all pretty much left out, meaning that except for a few semi-gory scenes closer to the end the German release doesn't deliver as a movie for 'gore-hounds', either. Can't comment on that for other releases of course. The plot has some stupid moments thrown in here and there and the beginning is just hilarious (ever heard of a demon visiting a psychiatrist?). Too bad the movie takes itself far too seriously, if it was filmed as a horror-comedy and changed a bit here and there accordingly it might have worked better. The ending is just a huge disappointment.

If you've got really nothing better to do and just can't stand the boredom anymore you might (and it's really a weak 'might') consider this movie. If there's anything else available to watch or do: Pick that alternative.


I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes....

I'm guessing that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and struggles to create some sort of new identity and life.

great little intense drama!


The comment by 'eliz7212-1' hits the proverbial 'nail on the head' for this turkey of a program. But it is a hoot to watch William Shatner 'cavort' and 'dance' (yes, the ' ' marks on the word dance are necessary for what Bill does). This show would be a great skit on SNL or MAD TV - and it does rate a few stars for one viewing, or so, to see Shatner, who seems to have taken 'camp' to new heights - whether in a role or as himself. But the guy is funny.

The girls who are in the cubicle areas with the game data scrolls, will be pretty much out-of-luck when this turkey is canceled - unless there is a revival of the whiskey-a-go-go genre, with a resurrected demand for shapely young women to dance in elevated cages once more.

I watched the first contestant, who was annoying, and literally 'dumber than a :post,' yet through sheer luck, walked away with a quarter mil or so. The second contestant, somewhat more intelligent, but who'd be lucky to gain $1,000 on Jeopardy!, got zonked by the card which requires answering a special question - which he didn't know, and thereby left with zilch.

This plethora of game shows, which dangle, and sometimes award, large sums to everyday individuals, are admittedly a cheap effort, overall, to attempt to woo viewers. Even if the host is well-compensated, and they give away six figures in an average episode, I suppose that the revenue versus costs can be favorable - since you don't have a sitcom cast where several stars are getting six or seven figures, per episode, with some big residual deals as well.

But I suspect even the better ones will wear thin before long. This one has already pretty much reached this point. I think his offerings, especially with James Spader, and the others on 'Boston Legal' should give us a satisfying quantity of Bill Shatner's offerings.

Again, the above rating is simply appropriate to view Bill hoot and prance, perhaps one time; that should be sufficient.


As an ancient movie fan, I had heard much about the controversial movie CALIGULA assessed ambiguously as one of the most realistic epics by some and as one of the most disgusting porn movies by others. I decided to see it in the entire uncut version to evaluate it myself hoping to find something positive that would make justice to the many accusations towards the film. I sat down in my chair one autumn evening and started to watch. The beginning quotation from the New Testament shocked me a bit and raised the first controversy in me...why to entail a sentence from the Gospel by Mark in the movie about pagan Rome? But the prelude pastoral scene with a young half naked couple (Caligula and Drusilla) running hopelessly through meadows seemed quite sentimental. The music which sounded memorably whilst the credits also provoked me in the positive sense. Yet, the negative feelings raised in me quite soon, particularly at the death of Tiberius. The cruelty seemed very intense and sexuality exaggerated. However, it was not that horrific to the middle. During the second half of the film, I felt as if I watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn. In the end, I said to myself 'This is one of the movies that one may really hate' ... I am aware that a movie may be controversial but I had never expected that CALIGULA would go that far in removing all limits of taste. I hate this film due to many reasons, but particularly one.

CALIGULA does not serve a purpose of an ancient epic (which it claims to be), but Bob Guccione, the director and the founder of Penthouse pornographic magazine, aims at combining film art with porn. That is, I think, the most serious matter the film may be accused of. Movie is an art that should be reigned by taste, by message, by some feeling of epic grandeur whereas this movie kills all limits of good taste. CALIGULA shows the most bestial side of human being in the most wicked, decadent manner. Some scenes are so disgusting that I don't think there are any people whose psyches will not be affected by them. Some say that the Rome under Caligula's reign was so brutal. Yes, it is true. Corruption bloomed at that time, various sexual deviances were preferable to Roman citizens. Yet, I do not think that it is right to focus on these deviations so strictly and make it constitute an emphasis of an ancient epic. I believe that it rather proves the bizarre psyches of the producers and their strange tendencies...

HUGE HISTORICAL MISTAKES: The screenplay by Gore Vidal is notorious for inaccuracies. It is noticeable, for instance, with the figure of Proculus (Donato Placido), a historic Roman senator. Yet, the film shows him as a simple soldier on whom Caligula forces his most decadent ways of tortures and rapes. Moreover, Livia was not Proculus wife raped by Caesar on her wedding. What lies behind changing the stories of historical characters into the stories filled with unbelievable vulgarity and violence? Another example of historical travesty is the figure of Caesonia portrayed by Helen Mirren. She is presented as Caligula's wife together with Drusilla, his sister. In fact, Caligula married Caesonia long after the death of his sister. The sexual abuse on his new wife in the temple is a hilarious scene with no historical bases. I also hated the moment with the killing machine - a pure imagination of the director that has nothing to do with historical facts.

TECHNICAL ASPECT AND CAST: From the technical point of view, the film is nothing special. The cinematography cannot boast to be exceptionally fine and the sets together with costumes are as well nothing outstanding. Yet, the only strong point of the movie are the performances, particularly the one by Malcolm McDowall as Caligula. He does a perfect job in the main role portraying madness and cruelty of the emperor. McDowall raises the value of the film. If everything bothers you in CALIGULA, you may at least admire his performance. I also fancied Helen Mirren as Caesonia and Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla (yet the film is based on a gossip by Suetonius that Caligula made love to his sister). Sir John Gielgud as Nerva and Peter O'Toole as old Tiberius are also memorable. O'Toole does his finest piece of acting in the Capri Grotto sequence portraying the decadence and the exhaust of the old emperor. Yes, I admit that THE ONLY THING I like about CALIGULA are the performances. Therefore, I don't rate the movie 1/10.

LAME CONTINUITY: The historical inaccuracy of the film also goes in pairs with poor continuity. Let us analyze just the beginning: Caligula comes to Capri Grotto where he sees the awful pleasures of old Tiberius. Then, after about 15 minutes, the action moves to Rome where a black bird near Drusilla and Caligula's bed constitutes a bad omen. And immediately the characters are again in Capri where Nerva (John Gielgud) is dying...?

All in all, I don't recommend to see CALIGULA to anyone. If you want to know the story, read Robert Graves' gorgeous novel I, CLAUDIUS and CLAUDIUS THE GOD or watch Herbert Wise's mini series with the magnificent performance by Derek Jacobi. CALIGULA is a sick film the most serious crime of which is the destruction of art. It is, in its most part, a porn movie that should never be called an epic.

There are movies that are truly artistic and sharpen people's taste of beauty,

there are movies that are average entertainment; yet they have something to offer,

there are movies that show extreme violence; yet they still convey some moral,

there are, however, movies that show sickness and decadence for their own sake and consequently harm people's minds,

CALIGULA unfortunately belongs to the latest group


This film does a superb job of depicting the plight of an ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease)sufferer. The subject is done with compassion as well as humor. Helena Bonham Carter is so convincing as a person with ALS that I found it hard to believe that she was only acting. Kenneth Branagh, a superb actor, lives up to expectations as the quirky artist who misbehaves and is forced to provide companionship to Helena's character as part of his 'community service', an alternative to prison time. Watching the development of the relationship between these two is a treat from beginning to end. Tha fact that it is a fairy tale does not detract from the fabulous performances. One comes to care deeply for the two of them.


Sudden Impact tends to be treated as Eastwood's artistic failure at a point in his career when he had established a good reputation as a director. The reason is actually not the film itself but the attitude it takes towards vigilantism which it seems to support. In some places it actually owes more to Death Wish than the original Dirty Harry film. One might argue if that is so- at the end of the day it's a film about guilt, justice and retribution. For me, at the end of the day it's more empathy than sympathy. However, in view of all these arguments it is easily overlooked that sudden impact is an awfully well made film. Forget the 'Go ahead punk, make my day scene', that's iconic but not original. But look at the views of San Fransisco taken from the air, zooming in on the city. The first 15 or 20 minutes are quite spectacular. Or have a look at the brilliantly made scene where Sondra Locke's character visits her mentally ill sister in hospital. Eastwood makes great use of the juxtaposition of faces. So all in all Sudden Impact is a very visual film that really shows how mature Eastwood is as a director. And if I remember correctly it was actually the first time Eastwood put that on screen albeit in an action film of debatable ideology. Also, I think this is the first well paced film Eastwood directed. Although Eastwood has enormous talent as a director, dramaturgy has always been his weak point (see Play Misty for me, Breezy etc.) Thepace of the narrative leads to the visual elements being well integrated into the film and not distracting from the story. The only thing that is really annoying is the farting dog.


Marvelous James Stewart, Vera Miles vehicle. What makes this historical film dealing with the FBI so good is the family element that is involved during a 35 year career as depicted by Stewart in the film.

The film shows a history of the great investigatory agency. It deals with airplane bomb plots, killing off of Indians in Oklahoma for real estate gain, fighting organized crime, Nazis and Communists in that order. The human element is never far behind as Stewart weds Vera Miles. They raise 3 children as Miles' heart goes out each time Stewart goes out on assignment.

Look for a brief but memorable performance by Murray Hamilton. Years later, he appeared as Mr. Robinson in 1967's 'The Graduate.'

The film has nothing but praise for J. Edgar Hoover. He certainly brought the FBI up to par.

True, this could be viewed as right-wing propaganda, especially with Stewart's real-life Republican views, but it's well done, historically informative, and the view of the family so well depicted.


As a horror-movie fan I try to watch all significant novelties of this genre, especially those which are the products of my native cinema. And I can say that that the 'Power of Fear' (or 'Vedma' as the Russian title of it) is one of the weakest film among them. Firstly, it can't scary even a little kid, it paces so slowly and so predictable that there is no place for the real horror. Frankly speaking, it's bad in all points: from the goofy plot (I don't know why the Russian producers/director decided to transform the classic story about Ukrainian witchcraft into some lame and ridiculous modern-day-America thriller. I absolutely agree with the previous reviewer  it doesn't thrill a bit) and to the terrible and cheesy actors' work. All actors including the leading Valeri Nikolayev and Yevgeniya Kryukova who are quite famous in Russia look like wooden dolls or something like that and it seems to me they didn't even bother to play at all, only spoke their English lines without any expression. And at the end I don't really understand why they filmed this flick in English with Russian actors? I think it was their wrong turn. At least they could cast some American or English actors for the leading parts to make them look more convincing. The same I can say about so called 'small American town backgrounds' which were shot in Estonia and look like it. The only positive moment I found in the 'Power of Fear' is the visual effects. They are not excellent but rather good for the Russian film. And the music is OK, at least it doesn't irritate me. That's why I give it two stars. Overall, if you want to see good horror film  don't waste your time and money on this boring flick. And if you are looking for something that claims to be a Russian horror I'd advise you to find a copy of 'Viy or The Spirit of Evil'. It's really the terrific movie based on the same novel as 'Power of Fear' but much, much better.


An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!

The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.

The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.

Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10)


Although there are some snippets in this 4-part documentary hinting at the necessity for recreational drug law reform, these are not very well-developed, in contrast to the many snippets from those who feel that the drugs that happen to currently be illegal are a scourge for which the only imaginable solution is incarceration of even those who are guilty even of mere possession of such drugs.

Although this program, as a whole, leaves the viewer with the impression that the drug war is largely a futile exercise and a waste of money, and for that it deserves some praise, almost nothing in this documentary addresses the very real problems that total war against those who merely possess illegal drugs obviously causes and contributes to--very real problems that most drug warriors themselves would tell you, if asked, they think the drug war is designed to solve. For example, while many minutes are spent on the surge in violence associated with the rising popularity of crack cocaine in the 80's, at no point does this program even hint that the very laws designed to suppress crack cocaine make it impossible for drug sellers to enforce their contracts and business arrangements in courts of law, forcing them to resort to violence to stay in business. But instead of seeing the laws as an important cause of the violence, the drugs themselves seem to take the brunt of the blame. Inexplicably, alcohol prohibition, the violence that ensued, and the subsequent reversal of prohibition, is totally ignored by this program.

This program will help to perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of drug users, and it is these that are the primary force in driving the very expensive and very problematic drug war. The possibility of incorporating drugs other than alcohol into a happy and successful life is not really touched on. Use of any drug in excess is probably going to cause personal problems, but not all users do their drugs in excess, just like not all alcohol users are alcoholics.

If you want a point of view from someone who believes that adults have a moral right not to be incarcerated and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system just for using drugs that the government, for mostly very arbitrary political reasons rather than reasons based on sound social policy and legitimate science, has decided to totally prohibit, whose users it has decided to not-so-metaphorically wage war against, just forget about it. None of that is in here.

On the other hand, this is hardly in the category of anti-drug propaganda. It is mostly an interesting neutrally-presented history of drugs in 20th century United States like marijuana, LSD, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, and Oxycontin. But there is a significant element of various people's points of view with regard to drug laws, and most (but not all) of that is not very thoughtful or well-informed and slanted in favor of the drug warrior mentality, especially with respect to drugs other than marijuana.

The criminal justice system, along with its often harsh life-ruining penalties, is obviously not the only answer or the most appropriate answer to every single social problem, but unfortunately there's an epidemic in this nation of an as-yet unnamed disease whose primary symptoms are a lack of imagination with respect to social policy when it comes to certain drugs, a lack of compassion for fellow humans, a prejudice against people who use the drugs that are not governmentally-approved, perhaps a vested interest in the growth of the prison/policing industry, and a horrid apathy with regard to human dignity. It's morally wrong to kidnap or incarcerate people unless you have a very damn good reason for doing so, and the mere possession of an arbitrarily selected group of drugs is clearly not such a reason. This is really the primary issue when it comes to drugs, yet this program ignores it.

So, in sum, the parts of this program that neutrally present history without feeding stereotypes of drug users that are at the heart of the drug war mentality are pretty good and interesting and entertaining. But when it comes to presenting a rational non-radical point of view with regard to drug policy, and giving the viewer examples not only of people with drug problems but also the many people who successfully incorporate drugs into happy and successful lives, it's pretty disappointing.


Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were: handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17 years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo, The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour.


Undoubtedly one of the great John Ford's masterpieces, Young Mr. Lincoln went practically unnoticed at the time of its initial release, no wonder because the year was 1939 when many of the greatest movies of the whole cinema history had been released, including the most mythical Western in the history of the genre, John Ford's milestone Stagecoach and many others, such as Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which took the Oscar in the only category Young Mr. Lincoln was nominated for, which is Original Screenplay.

 It continued to be the most underrated Ford's film for many years ahead destined to gradually fade away in the shadow of other John Ford's masterpieces, but by the end of the 1950s American and European film critics and historians took a hold of a note written by legendary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein about the Young Mr. Lincoln where he praised it and acknowledged that if he would only have had an opportunity to direct any American film ever made till then, it would be definitely John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln. Impressed by such an undoubted preference from Eisenstein, critics began to see the film again but only with a bit different eyes and film's reputation has been increasing ever since.

 It was far not for the first time the life of one of the most legendary American presidents was brought to the screen. Right in the beginning of the 1930s Griffith did it in his Abraham Lincoln and the same year as Ford's film, MGM released John Cromwell's one called Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Curiously enough both of them were based on a very successful Broadway Stage Play released in 1938 and written by Robert Sherwood.

 As far as John Ford's films are concerned, we can easily find many references to the life and deeds and even death of mythical Lincoln's figure in several of director's works, such as 1924 The Iron Horse or 1936 The Prisoner of the Shark Island, the second one, just as Young Mr. Lincoln, utilizes as the main musical theme the favourite Lincoln's song - Dixie.

 The screenplay based on a previously mentioned Stage Play and Lincoln's biographies was written by Lamar Trotti in collaboration with John Ford himself, which was quite a rare thing for Ford to do but final result was simply superb - a script combining elements of the Play with several historical facts as well as myths and legends about the beginning of Abraham Lincoln's life and law practice culminating in a hilarious but mostly heartbreaking trial scene, which is the film's highest point and main laugh and tears generator, where Lincoln defends the two young brothers accused of a murder and have to devise a manner to help their mother too when she is brought before the court as a witness and where the prosecuting attorney (played by Donald Meek) demands her to indicate which one of her sons actually committed the murder obviously obliging her to the making of an impossible choice of condemning to death one and letting live the other.

 Overall it's a very touching, heart-warming and even funny film with simply magnificent performance from Henry Fonda in his supreme characterization of Abraham Lincoln and with overwhelming richness of other characters no matter how little or how big they are incarnated from the wonderful and intelligent screenplay and conducted by the ability of John Ford's genius at one of its best deliveries ever. A definite must see for everyone. 10/10


As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.

It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.

This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)


Magnificent, original, beautiful movie. The acting is great, the settings en decors are superb (Paris at its best- but then the real Paris, not the famous settings) and the music will do also. A brilliant storie, very detailed, which I just very much love.

The best French movie I've seen (and French cinema is very good)!


Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.

It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.

Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - 'I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it'. It remains a favourite of many people.


'A Christmas Story' is one of many people's all-time most beloved films. ACS was able to take the viewer to a time and a place in such a way that very few films ever have. It had a sweetness and goodwill to it that is rare.

So I awaited (and awaited) its sequel, 'It Runs In The Family' . The film was almost released a couple of times, only to be pulled at the last minute. When it finally came out, IRITF was (and is, I guess) a total failure.

The sets and cinematography were just fine, but the directing totally, completely missed the mark. The film was nothing more than a cash-flow formula of lazy casting, lazy writing, and disconnected acting.

The narrator, Jean Shepard, who was one of America's great humorists and story-tellers, forced upon us a false reprise of the warm wit he used in ACS. He over-emoted, and why he did that I'll never know. He somehow managed to become an annoying, overwrought parody of himself.

The writing and acting in IRITF is inauthentic and forced. The actors may have seen ACS, but whatever wit and nuance that was in ACS mustn't have registered at all on any of them. The acting was embarrassingly slapstick and bereft of any of Shepard's dry humor.

ACS will always be a real treasure, but to call IRITF a sequel is to insult all of the fans of Jean Shepard and ACS.


Demonicus is a movie turned into a video game! I just love the story and the things that goes on in the film.It is a B-film ofcourse but that doesn`t bother one bit because its made just right and the music was rad! Horror and sword fight freaks,buy this movie now!


Just to let everyone know, this is possibly the WORST movie I have ever seen, and I've seen pretty much everything. If you're thinking of renting it, DON'T!!! It's not worth the cardboard container that it came in....


Coming from the 'druggie' generation, I thought this movie was hilarious. It definitely brought Jekyll & Hyde up-to-date, so to speak. My husband and I laughed all the way through it. Would love to have the movie in my collection. I told my two teenagers about the movie and they would love to see it. They aren't into drugs but they know enough about them to understand the comedy in the movie. It's been so long since I've seen it I can't remember but a few things. I would have to say the funniest part was when Dr. Jekyll dozed off on his lab table and inhaled the straw, while snoring, then snorted up the powdered drug he had invented. Funniest thing I'd ever seen in a movie.


No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.

I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.


'A Tale of Two Sisters' is a brilliant South Korean psychological horror that left me speechless.The film offers some delicious moments of ghastly horror and is extremely creepy.The small cast of actors is truly excellent,with lead Im Soo-jung being especially memorable in the lead role.The direction by Kim Ji-woon is well-handled and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.The plot is slightly confusing,but some scenes are wonderfully eerie.The action is rather slow,but I was not bored in the slightest;I was extremely curious and intrigued.The house,where the film takes place looks incredibly menacing and isolated.'A Tale of Two Sisters' is along with 'Ringu' and 'Kairo' one of the most original Asian horror films I have ever seen.Watch this masterpiece as soon as possible.My rating:10 out of 10.


A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey. The story, characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball. Still, it's worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I first viewed this 25 years ago.

A young hood steps up and starts doing bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy your health, or life.

This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to Martin Scorsese. Also present is that perennial screen wise guy, Frank Vincent. Strong on characterizations and visuals. Sound muddled and much of the acting is amateurish, but a great story.


Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying  18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free  I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd 'john' thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day  was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia  wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things  gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc  on a shoestring budget.


'A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage,' according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.

Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying 'out-of-body' example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered 'astral body' experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of 'The Blue Man', as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.

Several in the cast perform well; but, 'The Blue Man' winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka 'Eternal Evil', its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.


This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a littleoff balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role  he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses  his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet


This agreeable French movie deals about a millionaire owner of a tobacco factory on an African island nearly to Madagascar named Louis(Jean Paul Belmondo). He's a single man looking wife, then he advertises a bride and gets a gorgeous woman named Julia(Catherine Deneuve). When she spontaneously appears turns out to be much more attractive than expected. He marries to Julia but she suddenly disappears.A French eye private(Michael Bouquet) is hired by Julia's sister and soon he's on the trail of his previous spouse. Later Louis encounters her in a dancing-hall under another name. In spite of the romantic delusion and everything, Louis goes on enamored with his enigmatic wife.

This film is a splendid drama plenty of betrayal,deception, killing, theft and Hitchcockian suspense. Good performances by Jean Paul Belmondo as young proprietary of a cigarette company who seems determined to fall under the spell of a femme fatale and a wonderful Catherine Deneuve as suspect heroine. The film gets several references to the American cinema, but Truffaut(400 blows) was a fervent moviegoer, such as : Johnny Guitar, Colorado Jim, Bogart, and Hitchcock.The USA version was cut numerous minutes and deserves an urgent restoring and remastering. Loosely based on the novel titled'Waltz into darkness' by Cornell Woolrich (Rear window and screenwriter of Alfred Hitchcock hour) who also was adapted in 'Truffaut's The bride wore black'.Colorful cinematography by Denys Clerval(Stolen kisses) and atmospheric musical score by Antoine Duhamel, Truffaut's usual musician.This is one of the best of his suspense movies along with ¨Farenheit 451 and Shoot the piano player¨. Remade by an inferior version by Michael Christofer(2001) with Antonio Banderas, Angelina Jolie and Jack Thompson, full of erotic and lust scenes.


I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie.


Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?

Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clichés & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...

Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.

With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.

Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.


I own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.


'Admissions' is a fine drama even though they're are some problems with the ending. Lauren Ambrose plays Evie who is trying to avoid college. To make her overworked mother not notice, she makes up poems that everybody thinks her mentally challenged sister wrote. All the acting is first-rate especially Lauren Ambrose and Amy Madigan. They both put in great performances. The climax is also very powerful. There are only two bad parts. First is the character of Stewart Worthy played by Christopher Lloyd. His part is underdeveloped. The other weakness is the ending. It goes around in circles, which I didn't expect with the 84 min run time. Besides that, the movie is definitely worth watching.


There's been a vogue for the past few years for often-as-not ironic zombie-related films, as well as other media incarnations of the flesh- eating resurrected dead. 'Fido' is a film that's either an attempt to cash in on that, simply a manifestation of it, or both -- and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. The joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped, squeaky-clean, alternate-history (we are in the wake of a great Zombie War, and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb.

It's a moderately funny concept on its own, and enough perhaps for a five-minute comedy sketch, but it can't hold up a feature-film on its own. The joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again, and loses all effectiveness. The soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. The word 'zombie' is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh.

The very broadness and artificiality of the representation of 'the nineteen fifties' here can't help but irritate me. It is so stylized, in it evidently 'Pleasantville-'inspired way, that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s-ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. There is something obnoxiously sneering about it, as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open, down-to-Earth, and superior the 2000s are.

Because the characters are such broad representations of pop-culture 1950s 'types,' it's difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. Each has a few character traits thrown at him or her -- Helen is obsessed with appearances, and Bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father -- but they remain quite two-dimensional. Performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. The best is Billy Connolly as Fido the zombie, who in the tradition of Boris Karloff in 'Frankenstein' actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak.

There are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around -- to commodity fetishism, racism, classism, war paranoia, et cetera, but none of it really works on a comprehensive level, and the filmmakers don;t really stick with anything.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of 'Look! Zombies in 'Leave it to Beaver!'' for a good hour- and-a-half.


The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.

I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.

The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.

I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.


Let me start off by saying I love Japanese cinema, literature and culture generally. I've seen many Japanese movies and enjoyed them, but 'Portrait of Hell' (aka Jigokuhen) makes itself ridiculous. The two characters who dominate the action -- the 'evil lord' in his privileged bubble and the 'stubborn, crazy artist' are pure types with zero subtlety or nuance, and all their actions emanate from cartoonish extremes. The film wants to show horrible scenes of violence and raw emotion but many of these scenes are so over the top they actually become laughable and the overall feeling is that of a made-for-TV movie that went off the rails. If this rarely screened movie falls in your hands or comes to your town, spare yourself and give it a pass.


Did you ever wonder how far one movie could go?

Schizophreniac relentlessly explores the world of the extreme with Harry Russo.

Harry is an aggravated writer, killer and drug addict scumbag who will stop at nothing to destroy those who stand between him and insanity. Driven by the demonic voices of his ventriloquist dummy rubberneck, Harry begins his killing spree.

From director Ron Atkins comes the 1st installment of the vilest story ever to be filmed

The only other movie I have seen similar to this would happen to be the 2nd installment entitled Schizophreniac Necromaniac

This is a really low budget film and will not be for everyone, but if you are looking for something disturbing, different and horrific then this would make a fine choice.

DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING LIKE MODERN DAY HORROR (Such as Scream)

Viewer discretion is advised


This is one fine movie, I can watch it any time. Rauol Julia gave an outstanding performance, we lost him too soon. Richard Dryfus is a great talent. Only thing it needed more of was Dana Delany, what a babe!


Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video.

To give you a couple of examples:

1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, 'up shots' with ceiling in the background)

2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum.

In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...

...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny.


I just saw the DVD and loved it. In particular, I thought the director and Jude and Nicole did an amazing job with the kiss between Inman and Ada just before Inman left. It was the most romantic kiss I've ever seen in a film. I thought it was crucial for setting the tone for the rest of the movie; it managed to make it believable that Inman and Ada would walk/wait, respectively, for each other for all that time without ever really having had a relationship. I thought the film managed this crucial plot point much better than the book itself. I'm sure many of you will be quick to name other film kisses which best this one, but this one is it for me! Jude and Nicole had showed incredible chemistry in the far too few scenes they had together.


Watching this hilariously retro but very entertaining career girl tale, I was floored by Joan Crawford's first appearance. All I could think initially was, 'My God, it's the same face as Michael Jackson in his notorious booking photo!'

About 34 minutes into the movie, Diane Baker and Hope Lange get out of a cab in Greenwich Village. As they walk down the street, you can see part of a sign in back of them for the Stonewall Bar -- scene of the epochal 'riots' that are considered the trigger for the modern gay rights movement.

Speaking of Baker and taxis, I had to laugh when she gets into one and tells the cabbie, '56th and Sutton Place, please -- and be careful of the bumps.' Can you imagine the reaction to that from a driver in today's Manhattan?! She says that, of course, because she's pregnant and doesn't want to hurt the fetus. But that doesn't stop her from JUMPING OUT OF A MOVING CAR when she finds out Bob Evans wants her to have an abortion! Well, they had to find a way for her to lose the baby (1959 and all).

Sue Carson is delightful as Mary Agnes. Why was this her only movie? There is no biographical information on her in IMDb.


If you've seen this movie, you've been to Puerto Rico. I've lived in Puerto Rico all my life, and have to shamefully admit that we (PR) are living a real chaos right now, drugs being the main reason for the shootings and killings we have almost every day. These people will shoot anyone, anytime and anywhere, and many innocent lives have been lost because of this. We don't feel safe anymore, and in addition to this, our so-called 'justice' is no longer moved by truth and rightness, but by money, influence and power. 'Ladrones y Mentirosos' is based on real, deplorable facts, and truly portrays Puerto Rico's three main problems: the drug-related killings, money and power manipulating our courtrooms, and innocent people and children being corrupted and even dying because of this. Ricardo and his wife Poli, with their true-to-life plot and their award winning direction(**), were brave enough to present all this as bad as it is: Puerto Rico is a beautiful and friendly country, living a nightmare that doesn't seem to end !!! ** They recently won the 'Copper Wing Award' for Best Director in the World Cinema Competition at the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival.


This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.


this movie is the best movie ever it has a lot of live action It's just great everyone should watch it and the actor are great the location is Rome Italy thats the best place ever the actors are great Mary-Kate Olsen is such a great actress she plays Charlie and thats a great character and Ashley Olsen play Leila and thats a great character to love When in Rome love it.


When the Bourne Identity arrived five years ago I have to confess that I didn't think much of it. At the time I was eleven years old, so perhaps I was too young to really get into the storyline and understand the whole scenario. Two years ago when the Bourne Supremacy arrived I thought it was a better movie than Identity but still didn't think it was as good as I expected it to be judging by the trailers. Over the past two years I had been told numerous times that the Bourne movies were amazing, many a time I had to bite my tongue and not say what I really thought about the movies. Until two months ago I couldn't have given a damn about the Bourne Ultimatum, I really had no intentions of watching it. But then I decided to go back and re-watch the first two before I came to any abrupt decisions. So I went out and bought both the original movies. And what a surprise it was to me when I was gripped by them. Identity I found the superior of the two, but Supremacy isn't far behind. They're both slick, action packed and thrilling pieces of cinema that I have watched numerous times since I bought them. Because of this I was first in line today to see the Bourne Ultimatum. And boy did Bourne Ultimatum not disappoint!

Matt Damon was never one of my favourite actors until he appeared in the Bourne movies, I'd seen him in the Talented Mr Ripley, but I never thought much of him in general. However, it appears he was born to play Bourne (pardon the pun). Throughout this series we have seen the character change before our very eyes, in this movie we see Matt Damon at his very best, even better than he was in The Departed and I thought he was one of the best things in The Departed. You really do find yourself caring for the character and hoping that he finds out everything. Matt Damon plays the role with a quiet intensity and you always find his character extremely believable. The supporting cast of the movie were also absolutely outstanding. Joan Allen was one of my favourite things in Bourne Supremacy, here she excels herself. Her character is also very believable and she has some superbly acted moments towards the end of the movie. Julia Stiles turns up again as Nicky and finally we learn a bit about her character. Julia Stiles is a very underrated actress and I think she deserves a lot more roles, well decent roles, than she gets. David Strathairn is a newcomer to this series as Noah Vosen, he's definitely the bad guy of the movie and he really excels. He's definitely the nastiest character we've met, and some of the decisions he makes are truly nasty. Strathairn relishes the role and he too gets some superb scenes in the movie. Special mention must also go to Albert Finney who makes the most of his all too brief screen time, I will not say anything about the character, that's best left as a surprise, but trust me his scenes are some of the highlights of the movie.

The Bourne movies have always had a strict focus on the storyline more than the action sequences, this isn't to say the trilogy lacks action sequences, good god no there's loads of them dotted all throughout the movies. But running throughout the movie is a very well written and well acted storyline. This storyline concludes in the best way imaginable in this movie. As I watched Supremacy the night before I saw Ultimatum it was nice because I could notice certain little parts. That very final scene in Supremacy, in New York, a lot more important that I ever imagined at the time. Won't spoil it for people but I recommend checking up on Supremacy before you see Ultimatum. Unfortunately though for a lot of people they will go to see Ultimatum purely because of the action sequences. This is the part where I should condemn such people and say they should see it for the storyline, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that my favourite parts of the Bourne series as a whole are the car chases. The mini car chase in Identity is one of my favourite car chases of all time. Well the action in Ultimatum has to be the best of the Bourne series. In fact the movie kicks off with an action sequence in Moscow. So in the duration of the movie we get numerous punch ups, all very violent and shockingly brutal. A bike chase that is absolutely amazing, many foot chases which are even more amazing, a thrilling car chase that is unforgettable, and oh so much more! But the highlight for me has to be the scene in Waterloo station, won't ruin it but for some reason had me gripped.

So any flaws for the movie? In my eyes no, but if you are not a fan of the Bourne series or have not seen the previous two then I wouldn't recommend Ultimatum for you. The movie doesn't try to win over any new fans as it sticks to what the franchise does best and just adds a nice bit more storyline and action sequences on top. The Bourne Ultimatum is undoubtedly the best of the series and the best blockbuster of 2007. As a James Bond fanatic it is a great honour for me to say that Ultimatum is a lot better than a majority of the Bond movies, and trust me it takes a lot for me to say that. While Bourne as a whole might not be a better franchise than the Bond series, it is definitely nearly its equal.


Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes.


This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best.


This movie is on the level with 'Welcome Home Roxy Carmichael' for biggest pieces of garbage that have ever hit the silver screen. If these guys weren't Adam Sandler's gay friends, this script would have ended up where it should have: as some big time movie exec's toilet paper. I hate this movie, it makes me want to injure people. I will admit that I have high standards, but honestly I'd rather watch Step Up 2. The ultra sad part was when I logged onto IMDb and read that you pieces of trash actually gave this movie a 6.9 rating. This is a testament to all of the retards in our society that will go watch terrible movies that are just hour and a half long dick, fart, and weed jokes with little to no originality. After seeing this rating, I would like to suggest 'Tyler Perry's House of Pain' to all of you guys who enjoyed this film; you'll see some high quality humor there on about the same level of this abhorrent abomination.


And I'm serious! Truly one of the most fantastic films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. What's so wonderful is that very rarely does a good book turn into a movie that is not only good, but if possible better than the novel it was based on. Perhaps in the case of Lord of the Rings and Trainspotting, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. But I think that the fact that Louis Sachar was involved from the beginning helped masses, so that the film sticks close to the story but takes it even further. This film has many elements that make it what it is:

1. A unique, original story with a good mix of fun and humour, but a mature edge. 2. Brilliant actors. Adults and kids alike, these actors know how to bring the story to life and deliver their lines with enthusiasm and style without going overboard, as sometimes happen with kids movies. 3. Breathtaking scenery. And it doesn't matter if it's real or CGI, the setting in itself is a masterpiece. I especially love the image of the holes from a birds eye view. 4. A talented director who breathes life into the book and turns it into technicolour genius. The transitions in time work well and capture the steady climax from the book, leading up to the twists throughout the film. 5. Louis Sachar! The guy who had me reading a book nonstop from start to finish so that I couldn't put it down. He makes sure that the script sticks to the book, with new bits added in to make it even better. 6. And speaking of the script! The one-liners in this are smart, funny and unpatronising. But there are also parts to make you smile, make you cry, and tug at your heartstrings to make you love this story all the more. 7. Beautiful soundtrack. There's not a song in this film that I haven't fallen for, and that's something considering I'm supposed to be a punk-rocker. The songs link to the story well and add extra jazz to the overall style of the film. If you're going to buy the film, I recommend you buy the soundtrack too, especially for 'If Only', which centres around the story and contains the chorus from the book.

I do not work for the people who made Holes, by the way, I'm just a fan, plugging my favourite film and giving it the review it deserves. If you haven't seen it, do it. Now. This very instant. Go!


Tom is about to tuck into a delicious Jerry sandwich when a huge bird of prey swoops down and flies off with his snack. Not at all happy with having his sarnie stolen right from under his nose, Tom takes off in hot pursuit, determined to retrieve his mousy morsel.

As much as I love Tom and Jerry, I have got to say that this one is a bit of a stinker: the story is rather mundane; it introduces a badly conceived peripheral character that lacks charm; and it flogs the old 'dress the cartoon character up as a woman' gag to death.

In my opinion, 'Flirty Birdy' rivals 'Fraidy Cat' and 'Mouse in Manhattan' for the title of weakest Tom and Jerry caper thus far.


'One shot, one kill, no exceptions.' A must see if you are into marines or snipers. two big thumbs up! Great overall storyline, great camera work, good drama, action, details, and more. Pretty close to the real thing. But this isn't a film to breakdown and pick out the editing faults. this is to sit back and have a good 99 mins. The plot has some depth but this movie isn't really about making you think. its about enjoying the sniper lifestyle and action. sniper 2 and 3 are pretty good follow ups but the first is still the best overall movie. Tom Berenger does a great job playing his character and showing the hidden side of the sniper life. the plain of dealing with all of the death. Must see for sniper fans.


I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.

I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo.


Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.

Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.

It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.


While 'The Jackal' [remake of the excellent 'Day of the Jackal'] has better esthetics [and a boatload budget], this film nails the actual persona of 'Carlos' down...

Quinn excels as the Naval officer enlisted to impersonate the wiley Jackal to draw him out of hiding and, at the hands of Kingsley and Sutherland, turns himself inside out to do so. Risking his family, his career and all that he believes in, he takes on the task, albeit utterly unwillingly.

To say more would spoil it... this is an excellent film.

3 1/2 Niro~Stars [of 4]


They are hunted and starving. They are completely demoralized and yet they press on through sheer inertia. This film tries to answer the question 'How far will human beings go to survive?' Hopelessness emanates from every of this film and like so many japanese films of this time, it condemns the blind military loyalty that pressed the japanese people into war.


Batman Returns is a really dark movie, that shows the Caped Crusader fighting against the Penguin and the sexy Catwoman (I'll get to them later). Michael Keaton acts well as Bruce Wayne, showing he is a good actor. Tim BUrton directs this picture well, and the locations of the movie are impressive. The villains: Danny deVito is menacing as the Penguin. A cruel, yet disturbed man, that had a really hard childhood. But, Michelle Pfeiffer steals the picture. She is the BEST Catwoman ever! She is threatening, and extremely sexy. There's a scene where she kisses Batman the cat way that just heats the movie up. The action scenes are good too, and the ending is dramatic and tragic, probably the best ending of a Batman movie. Tim Burton shows he can manage a Batman movie really well (he already demonstrated this with the first Batman) and also gives Batman a darker nature. So much like him.


Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase 'low budget' a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes 'molecular reorganization'. Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic 'F', so rest easy!


There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of 'puerile' should now read: 'sex lives of the potato men'! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!


This is a children's TV series about a Mary-Sue who is at the same time, mean and bitchy. I couldn't bring my self to sit through 3 episodes of Zoey101. Not to mention that Jamie Lynn Spears can't act to save her life! What message does this show bring to kids? If you're not perfect like Zoey, you're unworthy *rollseyes*.

It's absurd how Zoey's character is exactly the type of person who would be despised in real life yet she manages to become so popular. Then there is Chase who is basically a lovesick puppy who worships the ground Zoey walks on. Then there is the fact that all the other characters seem to have been dumbed down in order to stop them from outshining Zoey. I'm sorry but the characterization in this show = extremely unrealistic.


If you thought 'ROSEMARY'S BABY' was bad, this one isn't much better. Easily one of the worst movies ever made, like it's lame predecessor, it goes nowhere fast.

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


I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation....'Last Year at Marienbad' comes to mind. Well, 'Pola X' ain't no 'Last Year at Marienbad'. I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. 'Pola X' achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. 'Pola X' does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!


I think this film has been somewhat overrated here. There are some things to admire in it; for one thing it deserves credit for being a science fiction(ish) film which relies on its story instead of special effects and action sequences to carry the day. The supporting cast is good, the set design and cinematography are good, and the ideas are interesting enough (though they are beginning to seem a little tired after the many mediocre Dark City / Memento / Fight Club clones of recent years). But the film is undone by poor characterization, wooden performances from the lead actors, and a laughably bad ending.

The main problem I had was that the protagonist was neither likable nor unlikable. I realize that part of the story dictates that he should be a bit of a (wait for it...) cipher, but I was utterly unable to work up any empathy for a character that just seemed like a boring, anonymous schlub of a man. What character transformation there is for this sad sack is artificially forced on him by the plot. Lead actor Jeremy Northam succeeds in conveying that the protagonist is confused and hapless, but fails at inspiring any sympathy for him. Opposite him, Lucy Liu does what she can with a character who has no real personality of her own, unless being the embodiment of a spy-movie cliché counts as personality.

One of the biggest disappointments of this movie is the ending. I won't give any spoilers here, but I will say that a surprise twist at the end was telegraphed pretty clearly at least 45 minutes before it occurred. Further, after being content to be a quirky, idea-oriented movie for the first hour or so, the last few scenes suddenly and terribly devolve into the worst kind of Hollywood pap, complete with big explosions and special effects. The revealing of the film's McGuffin at the end is poorly done, and at the end the characters seem even less likable than they did before some of the film's main plot threads were resolved.

The movie's not all bad, though. It does manage to maintain a certain low level of tension throughout most of it, despite the slow pacing (although I think I have a higher than average tolerance for slow-paced movies). And there are some moments when the unsettled, paranoiac feeling that director Vincenzo Natali was clearly trying to evoke rises to the surface. But in the end, these elements aren't enough to overcome the flaws in the film's acting and script. There is probably a good movie that covers these same themes and ideas, but this isn't it.


This movie is a true masterpiece, it really is. It's rare you come across such a heartwarming flick, full of fun, laughter, heartbreak, and with a little drama to keep you on your toes.

A true family film, Homeward Bound tells the story of three brave pets, who set out to cross the Rocky Mountains in an attempt to find their owners, following the changes they go through and the obstacles they encounter along the way. One of the truly stunning things about this movie is its ability to give animals human personalities - the voice acting is that good. Shadow is a wonderful character, old, wise and brave, and watching him trying to save Sassy in the river was a very powerfully moving moment. Chance - who wouldn't love a dog like Chance? He's got to be the most mischievous and lovable pup ever shown on the big screen. And Sassy is very witty for a cat - she had me in stitches when she was mocking the keeper; 'Here kitty kitty kitty... not on your life, chubby.'

There were also lots of well made emotional scenes, such as Sassy going over the waterfall (I was truly scared for her), Shadow falling in the ditch (almost in tears) and then the fantastic ending, when all three pets return home... including good old Shadow!

A favourite for all time - anyone who doesn't like this film must just not like animals. Rent it or buy it now, and it'll leave you with happy memories that'll last a lifetime.


De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale.

The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that 'she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter.' She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.

Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill.

The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.

In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time.

...Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; 'Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!' Or maybe you don't, but I do.

A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.

Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing.

It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com


Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8.


First of all sorry for giving even a rating of 1 to this movie (nothing less than this available). The film fails in every department be it screenplay, direction, characterization or acting.

1) To start with, the name of the movie is really C class (though the movie itself match up to the name). 2) Amitabh Bachchan tries his best to live up to the character but the weak script coupled with pathetic direction ends up making him a humorous character. 3) In Sholay Gabbar Singh has reward of 50,000 on him (which was convincing). Here in Aag the figure was 100 crores for Babban (Amitabh Bachchan but poor man was beaten by our so called hero's and had only few men bikes to commute (with all automatic guns). Making a Sholay like movie in Mumbai type setup in modern time doesn't look convincing. 4) As for Nisha Kothari, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't know acting. Why is Ram Gopal Verma casting her again and again ? 5) Mohanlal was good but there is hardly anything for him to do. 6) Sushant Singh and Rajpal Yadav who are great actors are wasted in the movie. 7) Legendry role played by Lila Misra (Mausi of Basanti) in Sholay is replaced cheaply in this movie by some Gangu Mummy. Ramu please grow up and understand that there needs to be some intellect in your movie. Enough of stupid characters in your movie like Shiva and Aag. 8) Should not say anything about modern Jai and Veeru..pathetic to the greatest extent.

To summarize, I was shocked to see this movie because it looks like a cheap and comic translation of original classic. Please don't waste money and time on this movie. I think watching Aap Ka Surror (which I thought was the worst movie possible) would be a better idea than to see this horrible package of stupid characters, bad songs and miserable direction.

Thanks, Saurabh


I'm here again in your local shopping mall (of course, 'cause that's where the high school kids hang out!!!!!) to demonstrate how awful 'BENDY POO: PROM COURIER' really is!!!!! To prove how bad this joke of a DCOM this is...

...we're going to take these four sumo wrestlers, and stuff them into this photo booth. How...cozy!!!!!

Hai! Huuuuuuuarrrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uh!!!!!

How awful is it????? It's so bad, Disney Channel flushes away its money, yet again, with those exciting yet determining 10-second promos, keeping the viewers wondering, 'WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE ON?????' And then, suddenly, when it DOES come on, for one, this not only got a higher TV rating than usual, but this was only seen once!!!!! Oh, no!!!!! One time everyone!!!!! Plus, this movie is about high school and stuff, and believe me, I will NOT go any further with what else is in there.....

Say ch...smile!!!!! (SNAP!)

Avoid this one at all costs. 0/10


Good Deaths. Good Mask. Cool Axe. Good Looking Girls....But Watch Out!!! No Plot and Little Scares Completely lower it's Standards. They Tried to make an 'I Know what you Did Last Summer', but ended up making A 'Scream'. But Hey, What do people Expect From a Horror Movie? Answers Totally Vary. Rent It If You Want, but I Regret Ever Seeing It.


The pakage implies that Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn are pulling off a huge bank robbery, but that's not what I got out of it! I didn't get anything! In the first half there's a new character (without introduction) in every other scene. The first half-hour is completely incomprehensible, the rest is just one long, annoying, underlit chase scene. There's always an irritating sound in the background whether it's a loud watch ticking, a blaring siren, a train whistling, or even the horrible score by Quincy Jones. There are a lot of parts that are laughably bad, too. Like, the bad guys chasing Beatty on thin ice with a CAR! Or, the police arriving at the scene roughly fifteen times. I really hated this movie!


After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:

1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)

2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah.

So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.


'Cut' is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher 'masterpiece', unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.


I was enchanted by Niami's debut. I hope that we'll soon see more of his work. I was lucky enough to catch the film during its brief NYC run and it struck me as a worthy successor to such downtown 80s flicks as Desperately Seeking Susan and After Hours, but with a gentle European whimsey that made it fresh and fun. A strong ensemble cast playing mostly against type was a pleasure. And I thought the complexly inter-threaded plots were just right. Sandra Bernhard puts in her best performance since King of Comedy, while Peter Stormare is hilarious, and Ling Bai touching. See it.


Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in 'screaming teen' cliché horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.

Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.

As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.

Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of cliché, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.

Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.

The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.

Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.

If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion.


I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman.