To call this film a disaster will be an understatement. I don't even know where to begin! I have questions though, and lots of them. I would like to know who conceived of this script? Who gave them money to make this film? Who was in charge of casting and costuming? They should all be sued! I saw this film in my local library's catalog and I thought 'Hey! great!' I had just seen the two FOG movies that Hollywood had produced and then realised that Bollywood had a version. Unbeknowst to me, that it would turn out to be a total and utter crap-fest!

Dhund - the fog, is a film about four friends (actually just one of them but you should know that there are four friends), one of them is a beauty queen (played by India's 1st Mrs. World, Aditi Govitrikar) and the director spares no expense at letting you know this. The script even claims that she (the character's name is Simran) has Aishwarya Rai eyes, Kareena Kapoor lips and Rani Mukherjee hair. Feel free to barf if you want to, at least at this point you haven't seen the film, unlike poor me. :*(

Anyway, Simran receives a death threat one day from one of the contestants' uncle, who tells her to drop out of the contest so that his niece would have a better chance of winning, but Simran's boyfriend doesn't allow her to do this and thus she participates in the pageant and wins. This causes the crack-cocaine-sniffing uncle of her former college classmate Tanya to come after her. But with the help of her cousin Kajal, Simran drowns the culprit and they enlist both their boyfriends in the task of getting rid of the body. It's tough but they eventually get around to doing it.

In a scene that borrows from Hollywood's film Diabolique, the pool where the dead body is hidden is drained only to reveal that the body is missing and this begins a conundrum of Whodunit and Where-is-it? By the time the film is over, the film successful steals scenes from 'I know what you did last summer, I still know, Scream 1, Scream 2, Scream 3, Murder she wrote episodes and not to mention, Columbo and Scooby Doo'! Shameless, I tell ya!

Inconsistencies and problems within the film include but are not limited to:

1. A scantily clad Simran answers phone-calls three times from her would-be-killer, the camera shows her drop the phone off the hook yet the phone is able to ring again each time and she picks it up to answer.

2. Tanya tries to kill herself because she doesn't win the beauty contest? WTF? Even Aishwarya Rai who is ten time more beautiful did not attempt suicide when she didn't win Miss India!

3. In the pool scene, the kids who come to retrieve the ball that has fallen into the pool conveniently disappear as soon as the police arrive. And the ball disappears too.

4. The cliché blue contacts lenses of the killer change from blue to brown in the drowning scene, yet when his corpse surfaces again, his eyes are blue.

5. Nobody who dies in the film is mourned (strange, especially for Indian society).

6. When Vikram jumps into the dirty murky pool, an underwater camera shows us his actions and miraculously the pool is transformed to Olympic size and is clean and clear as day.

7. Sexy belly-dancer performs a pseudo-orgasm drenched song and dance number about coming of age. That would have been cool for some bachelor party, but they were celebrating Simran's pageant win! Hello!!!!

8. Kunal, Sameer, Simran and Kajal can neither dance nor Lip Synch properly. But don't blame them, just accept that there was no choreographer for the dance numbers.

9. Nothing within the film was choreographed, it was like they just told the actors to show up and do whatever the want.

10. The film played out like there was no script. Either that or the director was high and drunk when filming this junk!

11. When Simran's picture was published without her consent in a magazine, she flew to the police headquarters to have the photographers arrested, yet she receives death threats and never bothers to alert the police.

Just to mention a few of course. This film was a painful experience for me and I advise everyone to skip it by all means necessary and possible. Bollywood should be terribly ashamed of this kind of film-making.


This telecast of the classic musical 'Sweeney Todd' does not do the production justice, but is still quite enthralling.

Firstly, the most enjoyable aspect of this version is the production design, from the wheeling multi-set to the startling trapdoor. Then, the staging is excellent, right down to the slashing.

The main failing here is in the performances people give. Oh, they're believable, all right-- but it is quite frustrating when nobody seems to be hitting their cues on time in a song as fast-paced as, say, 'Kiss Me.' In fact, the actress playing Johanna is not only off-tempo to a dismal degree, but also slightly off-key. And Angela Lansbury's slightly overdone cockney accent is a bit irritating. One more thing, too-- what, exactly, is so bad about Judge Turpin's performance of 'Johanna' that it is banned from the American theatre, but not the cannibal anthem 'A Little Priest'?

Otherwise, this is an excellent production. It's a thrill to watch people do what they love-- and I'm not even peripherally talking about 'meat pies with a twist'.


What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's 'Comic Book Whore' CD on Interscope records. It is awesome!


This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of 'Scary Movie' for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.


Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield) is nearing the completion of his rejuvenation formula, with the ability to reverse ageing, after twenty years. Ollie and Stan are the chimney sweeps that arrive to do their job, and very quickly Ollie wants to get away from Stan making mistakes. Ollie goes to the roof to help with the other end of the brush at the top of the chimney, but Stan in the living room ends up pushing the him back in the attic. After breaking an extension, Stan gets a replacement, a loaded gun, from off the wall, and of course it fires the brush off. Stan goes up to have a look, and Ollie, standing on the attic door of the roof, falls into the greenhouse. Stan asks if he was hurt, and Ollie only answers with 'I have nothing to say.' Ollie gets back on the roof, and he and Stan end up in a tug and pull squabble which ends up in Ollie falling down and destroying the chimney. Ollie, hatless, in the fireplace is hit on the head by many bricks coming down, and the butler Jessup (Sam Adams) is covered in chimney ash smoke, oh, and Ollie still has nothing to say to Stan. The boys decide to clean up the mess, and when Stan tears the carpet with the shovel, Ollie asks 'Can't you do anything right', and Stan replies 'I have nothing to say', getting the shovel bashed on his head. As Ollie holds a bag for Stan to shovel in the ashes, they get distracted by a painting on the wall, and the ashes end up down Ollie's trousers, so Stan gets another shovel bashed on the head. Professor Noodle finishes his formula, and does a final test on a duck, with a drop in a tank of water, changing it into a duckling. He also shows the boys his success, turning the duckling into an egg, and he next proposes to use a human subject, i.e. his butler. While he's gone, the boys decide to test the formula for themselves, but Ollie ends up being knocked by Stan into the water tank with all the formula. In the end, what was once Ollie comes out, an ape, and when Stan asks him to speak, all Ollie ape says is 'I have nothing to say', and Stan whimpers. Filled with wonderful slapstick and all classic comedy you could want from a black and white film, it is an enjoyable film. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Very good!


OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the 'characters' consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.


Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.

Who greenlit this mess?

I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.

Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.


What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?

The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it.


A cheap and cheerless heist movie with poor characterisation, lots of underbite style stoic emoting (think Chow Yun Fat in A Better Tomorrow) and some cheesy clichés thrown into an abandoned factory ready for a few poorly executed flying judo rolls a la John Woo. Even the squibs look awful. At no point in the proceedings does it look remotely like America. Three wonky old cars do not a country make.The Mustang even has a wobbly right front wheel. The plot, such as it is, is so derivative and predictable that the ending is like a mercy killing. It couldn't come soon enough. Even the jewellery from the robbery looks like the cheapest junk costume jewellery available. The awful dialogue and hopeless overacting by everyone who gets shot top off a real waste of space and time. Worth watching if you want to know how not to make a cliché-ridden low budget movie.


My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.

WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.

And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is 'Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch.'? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.


I saw this film again and noticed how close it is to the novel if we ignore the part about Cary's [Leslie Howard] childhood. Considering that

at the time not much can be shown on the screen, [not that there is much in the novel] the obsession of the character with Mildred [Bette Davis] is very well conveyed to the audience. I recommend this film to anyone who ever fell for another person and the other side tried to take advantage of him or her. I have read that Maugham was asked to make a recording of the novel for sale, but when he started to in the studio he began crying and could not finish more than a few lines and whole project was chucked. One can tell the novel is written from the heart and the film is a good

adaptation of a part of it at least.


This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called 'fantafestival'.I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.


I think this still is the best routine. There are some others, like Rock's 'bring the pain', and Allen's 'Men are Pigs' that are hilarious; 'Damon Waynes last stand' is also funny in a tearful way - but this routine has no errors. All the jokes are funny, and the time limit of 70 minutes is perfect. Just long enough to last 20 years. I just love how he allows the audience to be totally themselves and unrestricted. I'm a fan of the classics and for a guy who watched a lot of of Jim Carrey growing up, watching a more laid back comic is pretty cool. Not putting in a category with Ellen and Newhart, but something you can watch if you're bloated. Thanks Eddie, god bless.


I have seen many good Korean Movies including thrillers and movies with darker overtone, but this one sucks. The director seems to be a sadist, who happened to get someone to produce some junk. The movie lacks any sort of entertainment value and is not even a thriller. I can't believe someone really made such a movie. Even though acting is OK, the story line and the feeling it leaves is awful.

I am sure, I am not going to see any movies of this director. No sense of movie making, and utter disappointment in having thriller moments. All this has is showing scenes with psychopath wasting the reels with badly shot scenes and showing more blood and violence thinking that makes it thrilling. Very disappointing movie and I strongly recommend skipping all the movies of this sort.


Warner Brothers tampered considerably with American history in 'Big Trail' director Raoul Walsh's first-rate western 'They Died with Their Boots On,' a somewhat inaccurate but wholly exhilarating biography of cavalry officer George Armstrong Custer. The film chronicles Custer from the moment that he arrives at West Point Academy until the Indians massacre him at the Little Big Horn. This is one of Errol Flynn's signature roles and one of Raoul Walsh's greatest epics. Walsh and Flynn teamed in quite often afterward, and 'They Died with Their Boots On' reunited Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's romantic interest for the last time. They appeared as a couple in seven previous films. This 140-minute, black & white oater is nothing short of brilliant with dynamic action sequences, humorous romantic scenes, and stern dramatic confrontations between our hero and his adversaries. One of the notorious errors involves Colonel Philip Sheridan who is shown as the commandant at West Point before the Civil War. Indeed, Sheridan was a lieutenant at this point. In fact, the commandant was Robert E. Lee as the earlier Flynn film 'Santa Fe Trail' showed. Another historical lapse concerns Lieutenant General Whitfield Scott; Scott was not the commander of Union troops throughout the Civil War. Warner Brothers presented Custer as a drinker (probably because Flynn had a reputation for drinking), but in real life Custer neither drank nor smoked. Nevertheless, these as well as other historical goofs do not detract from a truly splendid film.

'They Died with Their Boots On' opens with Custer riding into West Point Military Academy arrayed in a fancy dress uniform with an African-American carrying his luggage and tending his dogs. After the sergeant of the guard realizes that he has turned out a honor guard for a future plebe instead of a high-ranking foreign general, the sergeant turns Custer over to a ranking cadet Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy of 'City for Conquest') to take charge of him. Sharp plays a practical job on Custer by installing him in the quarters of Major Romulus Taipe (Stanley Ridges of 'Task Force') who promptly runs Custer out. Naturally, the volatile Custer attacks Sharp in a public brawl. General Phil Sheridan (John Litel of 'The Sons of Katie Elder') is prepared to dismiss Custer from West Point for conduct unbecoming. As it turns out, Sheridan cannot expel Custer because Custer has not enrolled. Once he enrolls, Custer establishes a mediocre academic reputation with alacrity to fight and accumulate demerits galore. When the American Civil War erupts, West Point graduates cadets who have not completed their education and rushes them into combat. One of the last cadets hustled off to war is Custer. Avid as he is to get into the fight, Custer encounters his future wife, Elizabeth 'Libby' Bacon (Olivia de Havilland of 'Santa Fe Trail'), and they pledge themselves to each other, despite Mr. Bacon (Gene Lockhart of 'Carousel') who detests the sight of Custer. It seems that Bacon ran across Custer at a saloon and insulted one of Custer's friends and our hero reprimanded Bacon.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Custer desperately seeks a transfer to a regiment, but Major Taipe has him cooling his heels. Custer befriends rotund Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (Sidney Greenstreet of 'The Maltese Falcon') and they share an appetite for creamed Bermuda onions that becomes one of Custer's characteristics. Not only does Scott see to it that Taipe assigns Custer to the Second Cavalry, but also Custer appropriates Taipe's horse to get to his command. During the Battle of Bull Run, 21 July 1861, Custer disobeys orders from none other than Sharp, strikes his superior officer and holds a bridge so the infantry can cross it. Wounded in the shoulder and sent to the hospital, Custer receives a medal rather than a court-martial. When Confederate General Jeb Stuart threatens the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, Scott is shocked by the chance that the South may triumph. When a brigadier general cannot be found, Scott goads Taipe into promoting the first available officer. A mistake is made and Custer is promoted. Incredulous at first, Custer embraces the moment and cracks Stuart's advance. After the war, Custer idles down and starts boozing it up with the boys at the local saloons. Sharp shows up as a crooked railroad promoter and with his father they try to enlist Custer to serve as the president of their railway so that they can obtain funds. Eventually, Libby intercedes on his behalf with General Sheridan, who was in command of the army, and gets him back on active duty as the commander of the 7th Cavalry. When he takes command, Custer finds the 7th cavalry a drunken lot and is not surprised that Sharp commands the liquor at the fort. Meanwhile, Custer has his first run in with Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn of 'The Guns of Navarone') and takes him into custody. Of course, Crazy Horse escapes, becomes Custer's adversary, and they fight.

Once Custer has quelled Crazy Horse and the Indians, Sharp with Taipe as a government agent conspire to destroy a peace treaty with the Sioux and other Indian nations. They also see to it that Custer is brought up on charges for striking Taipe in a saloon brawl. On his way to Washington, Custer discovers the perfidy of Sharp and Taipe who have drummed up a gold strike in the sacred Black Hills. Settlers rampage in and the Indians hit the warpath. Custer sacrifices himself and his 600 men at the Little Big Horn in a slam-bang showdown against 6000 redskins. 'Stagecoach' lenser Bert Glennon captures both the grit and the glory. The long shot of the 7th Cavalry leaving the fort at dawn is spectacular. As an added premonition of Custer's imminent demise, Libby faints after he leaves their quarters for the Little Big Horn. 'They Died with Their Boots On' benefits from a top-notch Max Steiner score that incorporates the regimental tune 'Gary Owen.'


From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

'The House Where Evil Dwells' is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film 'Ju-On: The Grudge' and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.


I'll start by relating my first encounter with Prince's music. It was in a bar, on my 39th birthday and a girl was dancing bare breasted to '1999' playing on the speakers. I asked people, who is this singer? I was told it was Prince. It was so good that it distracted me from a beautiful, topless dancer. Later I started hearing other Prince songs and really 'digging' them. When Purple Rain came out I still knew very little about this fellow Minnesotan. The movie blew me away. I instantly became Prince's No. 1 fan of the 'War Baby' generation. Later I found out one of my cousins was his secretary, and she got me, and my nephew into a V.I.P. Prince concert where we sat next to his mother...how cool is that! Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree with Siskel & Ebert who called Purple Rain an instant classic. I have seen it over 17 times and absolutely love it. I thought Prince's acting was fine, Apollonia struggled a bit, but all in all the acting was fine. John Gielgud was not available to play 'The Kid' so Prince took the role. The film is visually stunning, brilliantly paced (it never gets slow), and terrifically directed. I rank it among the Best Movie Musicals of all time. The last time I watched it was after about a 7 year gap and it still delivered. I am so proud of fellow Minnesotan Prince Rogers Nelson and would love to tell him personally. He walked right in front of me during the above mentioned concert and said, 'Hi', to my nephew but not me. He was chatting with his mom. I was a bit crushed but he's still No. 1 with me.


One of the funniest movies made in recent years. Good characterization, plot and exceptional chemistry make this one a classic


I watched this movie yesterday and was highly disappointed.

Heather Graham and Tom Cavanaugh basically had to carry this awkwardly unbelievable script for five hours (or however long it actually was). From the beginning, every single element of this movie is unbelievable. This movie made me chuckle several times, but they were mainly out of shock that the director/writer actually expected us to believe the many messy scattered elements that attempted to piece this movie together.

The movie's focus is Gray (Graham) and her issues with intimacy. Things get interesting when she realizes that she and her brother have unexpectedly WAY too much in common.

Interesting, intriguing. However, instead of unraveling this story into something believable and palatable, the director keeps taking Gray into these ludicrous twists that never actually make any sense at all. Being an LGBT individual, this movie seemed to echo what all heterosexuals think we go through in the coming-out process. (I'll be insulted if the writer's queer.) Had it not been for the cute chemistry between Cavanaugh and Graham (which, by the way, was understandably forced), I would give it a negative 3 stars.


I went into this movie thinking that it would be a neat football drama (in the same vein as Remember the Titans); however, I came away feeling like I had just attended a Ted Haggard sermon about the Rapture. The only thing that was missing was the request for a tithe at the end of the movie. Actually, one would probably get more out of a televangelist sermon than this poor excuse for entertainment. At least with the televangelist sermon, there are quotes from the Scripture rather than quotes from popularist self-help pulp. The plot was entirely too predictable to the point that anyone with a long-enough attention span could have laid out the entire plot within the first 15 minutes of the movie.


Strangler of the Swamp was made by low budget studio PRC and is certainly one of their best movies I've seen.

A man who was hanged for a murder he didn't commit returns as a ghost for revenge on the people who accused him. He uses a rope to strangle his victims and after several deaths, including the old man who operates the ferry across the swamp, he disappears. The old man's granddaughter takes over the ferry herself and also falls in love with one of the local men and they decide to get married.

This movie has plenty of foggy atmospheres, which makes it very creepy too.

The cast includes Rosemary La Planche, Blake Edwards and Charles Middleton (Flash Gordon) as the Strangler.

Strangler of the Swamp is a must for old horror fans like myself. Excellent.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5.


A tedious mixture of puerile efforts at humour with romantic relationship melodrama fails to provide this weakly made film with any flavour of reality. As action opens, Reno (A.J. Buckley) enters his apartment, there discovering his girlfriend in flagrante delicto with his roommate, who gloatingly tells Reno 'Well, at least it's with someone you know', resulting in Reno's decision to never have another roommate, this decision told to viewers by means of a soon abandoned voice-over. The storyline then proceeds ten months where we find that Reno is indeed true to his word concerning avoidance of roommates, although this appears to beg the question due to his garnering of a live-in lover, Holly (Holly Fields), with whom he has generated marital plans. The plot briefly shifts to a sleazy Hollywood strip club, wherein Reno's Uncle Charley, enamoured of a 'dancer' whom he finds eminently desirable, keels over dead atop the club's bar after seeing the unadorned charms displayed by the object of his affections. It is apparent that Charley had been aware of the flawed condition of his heart, because he created a video tape during which his commentary bequeaths his large (and mortgaged) residence in Hollywood to Reno, and we see the latter deciding to, contrary to his vow, interview applicants for two roommates as tenants, with he and Holly sharing the selection process in an organized manner. Following an inane sequence involving bizarre renter candidates, all of whom Reno and Holly unsurprisingly find unsuitable for living along with them in their house they, unknown to each other, each select a renter of the opposite sex, with the lovers manifestly cool toward the choice of their partner. The newcomers (Chad and Nicole) would seem to have little discernible point to their existence other than highly aural fornication with a broad range of partners, and it is not long before jealousy mars the harmonic relationship of Reno and Holly. Reno is bent upon patenting and merchandising a type of sporting travel bag and, as he has given an engagement ring to Holly, the potential success of this entrepreneurial adventure is of great financial significance if he intends to advance his marital plan. Unfortunately, the rapacious team of Chad and Nicole, whose every action is ostensibly laced with lust, is likely to disrupt any future wedding intentions of Reno. Direction is slack, plainly far from fulfilling basic needs of the players, although an erratically composed script provides scant material with which actors may work, and ad libbing falls embarrassingly flat. As a result, the performances are undistinguished, not aided by spotty editing, while the manner of camera-work changes as abruptly and often as a firefly's tail light. Filmed with a low budget and on location, only a modicum of skill is required for the designing processes, but a larger measure of value might have been placed upon the tasteless D.J. background soundtrack, generally blaring and nearly always invasive. A good deal of discussion has been stimulated by the movie's final sequences that are apparently not expected by a viewer based upon what has come before, but in reality these comprise probably the only thoughtful portions of a poorly cobbled screenplay, and bids fair to make the work almost watchable, despite the shabby quality of the production as a whole.


Writer/Director John Hughes covered all bases (as usual) with this bitter-sweet 'Sunday Afternoon' family movie. 'Curly Sue' is a sweet, precocious orphan, cared for from infancy by 'Bill'. The pair live off their wits as they travel the great US of A. Fate matches them with a 'very pretty' yuppie lawyer, and the rest is predictable.

Kids will love this film, as they can relate to the heroine, played by 9 year old Alisan Poter (who went on to be the 'you go girl!' of Pepsi commercials). The character is supposed to be about 6 or 7, as she is urged to think about going to school. Some of her vocabulary suggests that she is every day of 9 or older.

Similar to 'Home Alone', there is plenty of slap-stick and little fists punching big fat chins. Again, this is 'formula' film making, aimed at a young audience. Entertaining and heartwarming. Don't look for any surprises, but be prepared to shed a tear or two.


Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.

Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.

The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.

Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.

Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.

Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.


I saw this movie for the first time on a sick day from school about ten years ago. Compared to the made for Lifetime movies I usually watched, it became an instant though obscure favorite.

I've seen it maybe twice since then. I think some parts are little cheesy, maybe the plot could use some more action.

Nevertheless, it captures the fantasies and realities of children with uniqueness and warmth. The magical realism is on par with that of Amelie, and the heart with that of The Wonder Years. Despite the particular development of my tastes, I still find the subtle magic of this film, the lovable characters, and its simplicity enchanting.


This movie had so much potential to be hilarious yet moving but fell way short of either. It had a great story line, it just was not executed as good as it could have been. The weird 'hallucinations' during his sleep scenes made absolutely no sense and definitely was not needed, they made no impact nor did they enhance or lend any understanding of what was to come or happen.

Jon Heder's character was OK but could have been expanded upon more. He played the crappy part he was given at his best. The character was funny, but again, it fell short of what could have been.

Mila's character was perfect and her performance was spot on.

In closing, the writing was horrible and more often than not, made no sense and his hallucinations did not fit with the movie at all. This movie, with better scripting and directing, could have been a contender to National Lampoon's Vacation as far as funny, bad things happening to a person on a trip across America.

Instead, it was only worthy of a second 'flush'. If I would have seen this at the theater, I would have demanded my money back and boycotted the film.

The only thing that this film did was waste an hour and a half of my life. It also managed to make all those involved in the movie look bad, simply because the movie was a stinker.

I do not recommend this movie to anyone! Ever!


A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.

sv


This is unlike any other movie, the closest thing I can compare it to is a Woody Allen film... But where as Woody Allen is constantly fathoming human foibles Bret Carr appears to be trying to figure out a way to get to grips with that one crippling insecurity that tends to define us for better or worse. In the Case of Lou, it is the root cause of his stuttering, which can be traced back to a singular child hood trauma that is revealed through flash backs.

There are so many strangely neurotic people in the world and I believe they all deserve a chance for redemption, although diversity of human character is after all what makes the world such an intriguing place, so maybe we shouldn't fix our neurosis anymore than we should fix our noses or Breasts.

This is an indie film shot on a long shoestring, but the production values are tremendous as is the scope of the film. I feel like its a quirky Gem for the self-help market. I really look forward to seeing what this filmmaker does next, i could imagine a career along the lines of Woody Allen or Albert Brooks, although usually when a guy like this breaks through, he goes off and makes ' X MEN' and his humble quirky origins are soon forgotten or are they.... X Men is aout a bunch of freaks if i remember correctly :)


A well written screenplay. A moving story showing the middle class English at it's best. Some great acting by Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson. Tom Wilkinson is one of Britain's best actors. He knows how to be subtle and honest. Emily Watson is an actress I was not familiar with, but to her credit she does a great job of playing the ****** wife. The director, Julian Fellowes did not succumb to the typical Hollywood gimmicks to give the film some meaty storyline. It has not over dramatized it's portrayal of the English middle class. The films pace does not falter although it is not a faced paced film. A good twist in the plot, that is not predictable A lovely English country village setting. I enjoyed this film very much The locations were also very well selected. If you enjoy films about relationships this is one to watch. Better to have some tissues ready!


I think that saying this film has too many is not what makes this film bad. The twists are not the problem of the film. The story is quite clever and could have been very cool if filmed right. The major problems why everyone is complaining about the twists in the film is that the film is just not fascinating enough to make people follow them. The film is badly shot (at least in comparison to its genre brother Lock, Stock). Worse: the characters are (although often well acted) just plain flat. The characters don't have enough time to be introduced well enough to let the viewer get involved with a single one of them, let alone understand them. Oh, and the locations are just terrible: locations-person (I didn't bother to watch the credits for your name) - get another job (maybe still photography or interior design)


I watched Cold Mountain and the English Patient again this weekend. The former is a Civil War melodrama about Inman (Jude Law), a Confederate soldier who deserts the army to return to Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) a girl he barely knows. Both films were lovingly directed by Anthony Minghella who does an exceptional job. Although, Cold Mountain is very good it could have been a great movie with the right casting and less folksy, backwoods dialog.

Romantic epics need a convincing heroine. The English Patient, had Kristin Scott Thomas who was perfectly cast as the smart, alluring and beautiful Katherine Clifton. The main problem with Cold Mountain is Ada who seems silly and dim-witted and lacks that quality would make you believe that Inman could become obsessed after one kiss. As an actress Kidman has a limited range, she usually plays stern-faced women who face adversity with stoicism. Kidman was also too old to play the ingénue and Law's love interest. The film needed a young actress who could play charming, warm and vulnerable. For someone who was supposedly enduring hardship and near starvation she seemed ridiculously well-fed and over-dressed. Kidman was so impeccably groomed that it looked like she had spent three hours getting made-up for each scene. Michele Pfieffer in her younger days could have played the part perfectly. Even Natalie Portman would have been an improvement.

Renee Zelleweger was more appropriately attired but her animated performance chewed the scenery but maybe she was trying to compensate for Kidman. Jude Law was in his own silent movie in the Odysseus role, but played his part well. Ray Winstone was excellent as the London/Southern villain.

During the Civil War, people were probably not very well educated by today's standards and maybe they did speak in monosyllables. However if you watch BBC adaptations of Dickens, Austen or Mrs. Gaskill everyone is articulate. Maybe this is unrealistic but it would improved my entertainment.


In the world of 'shorts' (most of which aren't), this film is a gem.

A quiet, concise peek into the world of a young woman who's a reader for a blind woman, here the stellar Elizabeth Franz - this film bears the textures, layers and visual storytelling of a sumptuously painted still life.

The dialogue is minimal, the cinematography is stunning, and the direction sure, clear and compelling. I saw this film in a film festival held in a loud and crowded Tribeca bar - and within the first two minutes (and for the first time that night), the crowd fell quiet.

That says it all.


One Night at McCool's is one of those films that starts with an awful amount of promise but as the film goes on it becomes silly and loses it's way big time. Liv Tyler plays a manipulative woman who tries to get her own way by flaunting her body to every man she meets ,all of which fall under her spell.There are a few funny moments in this but they get fewer and fewer as the film deteriorates into a comedy farce. Michael Douglas who plays the assassin is good as is Liv Tyler, although she does look like she had put on a bit of weight since armaggedon. This is ok but is only memorable for the scene in which Liv Tyler washes her car, you will know what i mean when you see it fella's! Shwing!!!!! 7 out of 10 (just).


The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being 'just' a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!

People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy!

In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks!

Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10


Remember when Rick Mercer was funny? 22 Minutes was a great show when Rick Mercer was on it and Made In Canada was a great show once too. Talking To Americans was such a funny special too. But like my friend said 'Rick Mercer woke up one day and wasn't funny any more' I think that day was when Rick Mercer Report went on the air. What is the point of this show? Rick Mercer reads wacky fake headlines, shows pictures of bad sheds that people mail in and then spends about 20 minutes of the 30 minute show going somewhere and just talking to people hoping to say something witty or clever enough to get on TV and maybe even make somebody somewhere laugh. We're supposed to be interested in seeing Rick Mercer visit a gymnastics team and then try to do some of their moves, and then suck at it on purpose while trying desperately to be 'funny'. Rick Mercer got old or just lost interest or just ain't funny any more. Even his classic rant bits have lost all their bite and humor. You can say that about CBC comedy in general though because how many years have they been sticking Air Farce on TV to deliver the same kinds of useless jokes?


I saw this series on PBS in 1980 in college and I still can't get it out of my head, although I have never seen it since. I remember every cast member (the casting WAS perfect, as mentioned in other comments), the design, the lighting and, of course, the story, which is by itself is enough to keep you glued to the set. Probably the best TV series I ever saw next to the original 'Roots.'


I don't even know where to begin...

It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 / 10 instead of 2 / 10 'I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought 'no, nobody would do something that stupid'. The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever.'


The Dentist starts on the morning of Dr. Alan Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) & his wife Brooke's (Linda Hoffman) wedding anniversary. On the surface Mr. & Mrs. Feinstone seem to have a nice life, a beautiful home in Los Angeles & he has a successful career with responsibility but beneath things are very wrong. Alan discovers that Brooke is having an affair with Matt (Michael Stadvec) the swimming pool cleaner, to add to his humiliation Alan then discovers that Matt is also having sex with Paula Roberts (Lise Simms) one of his next door neighbours & to top it all off he owes the IRS, who are breathing down his neck, a shed load of money. Alan starts to lose his mind, he convinces himself that everything is decayed & rotten, just like his patient's teeth, & it's up to him to fix it. That morning at work he begins to take his frustrations & anger out on his patients, first he injures a young boy named Jody (Brian McLaughlin), he sexual assault's a patient named April Reign (Christa Sauls) after he hallucinates that she is his wife & deliberately performs an unnecessary & painful procedure on another. Alan also begins to take drugs as he completely loses it & goes homicidal starting with his adulterous wife & pool cleaner...

Directed by Brian Yuzna I thought The Dentist was a good film & tried something a bit different. The script by Dennis Paoli, Stuart Gordon & Charles Finch is more of a psycho thriller than straight slasher which came as a surprise to me as I was expecting the latter, it would have been easy to make a teenage slasher film like Friday the 13th (1980) with a high body count & a wise cracking dentist villain but what The Dentist actually turned out to be is very different. The Dentist is at heart a character study of one mans descent into madness & it does a fine job although having said that I'm not sure what he goes through is enough justification for his subsequent murderous actions. It moves along at a nice pace, has a nice narrative in which I liked the constant connection Alan makes between the decay he sees in his patients & the decay he sees in the world around him & is an entertaining way to pass 90 odd minutes. It goes without saying that anyone with a phobia about the dentist probably should give this one a miss or you'll never go again! I liked the ending too where the tables are turned, I'll say no more...

Director Yuzna does his usual fine job here, in fact I don't think I've seen a Yuzna film that I didn't enjoy to some extent, he obviously & predictably takes the opportunity to play on our fear of the dentist with some nice dental torture set pieces including pulling people's teeth out, sexually molesting them, performing operations on drugs & torturing people with the dreaded dentist's drill. There are some other gore scenes as well, a dead dog, someone gorily slashed with a knife & cut out tongues. Yuzna gives the film a certain style on what was probably a low budget, he likes to tilt his camera which make for some nice angles & I liked the shot where the camera is above someone being knifed & huge sprays of blood splatter on the floor in a nice wide overhead angle.

Technically The Dentist is fine, decent cinematography, music & production values although some of the special make-up effects look a little unconvincing. The acting is pretty strong from everyone involved with Corbin putting in a good crackpot performance. The ever cool & genre favourite Ken Foree turns up as Detective Gibbs one of Los Angeles finest.

The Dentist didn't turn out like I had expected & all the better for it, if your a horror fan & perhaps want something a bit different then this is well worth checking out. I liked it & think it's definitely worth a watch.


Most complaints I've heard of this film really come down to one thing: It isn't Versus. Yes, the cast and crew is basically the same. Yes, Kitamura rehashes a few shots in the fight scenes that come in the film's second half, but that's about where the similarities end. Versus takes place essentially all outside, showcasing Kitamura's ability to craft an interesting B-movie in natural locations. For Alive, almost everything takes place inside. In small, cramped spaces. Here the art design is thrust into your face, and WHAT art design it is! We are treated to several very intricate and interesting spaces, and our characters are for the most part confined to those spaces. Also a key difference is that we don't get much action here until the end of the film. Versus was all about action and cool, here a LOT more emphasis is put on characters and situation and messing with your mind. Because of this, Alive is a far more interesting film than Versus. You may not pop it in and go to a random scene to watch five or ten minutes of cool zombie bloodshed, but you will sit glued to the screen for nearly two hours watching he interaction of a few genuinely interesting characters.

I'm now ecstatic that I ordered the DVD despite some naysay. You should too! But be sure to realize this is a different animal from Versus - it's often slow, and requires a bit of thought to get the most out of it. I hope Media Blasters picks it up for subtitled R1 DVD release!


There's a lot going on in The College Girl Murders. A mad scientist creates an almost undetectable poisonous gas. Before he can reap the rewards of his discovery, the scientist is killed by a hooded, whip-welding monk. After a co-ed is killed in a church by the gas, Scotland Yard is called in to investigate, but the killing continues. Who can stop this mad killer who seems to be able to come and go as he pleases in and out of the college?

What Works:

- The Killer. What's not to like about a killer who sneaks around wearing a vivid red KKK looking outfit, complete with red gloves. The white whip he carries and uses very effectively stands out nicely against the bright red gown. Although the idea of a killer in a flaming red, pointy-head outfit sneaking around a girl's school is fairly far-fetched, it's one of the more sinister looking costumes I've seen.

- Groovy 60s Music. I really would like to track down the title music to The College Girl Murders. It's got a jazzy, hip, 60s feel to it that I just loved.

- Bizarre Touches. Beyond the killer's red gown and hood, the movie features a sliding fireplace, a pit of alligators with a cage handing overhead, poison spraying bibles, a strategically placed mannequin, mini-skirts, go-go boots, and mile high hair. I would describe it as a cross between the 60s Batman TV show and an Italian giallo. The College Girl Murders is a real treat for the eye.

- The End. Let's just say that there are more twists than a mountain road. Just when you think the killer has been uncovered, here comes a twist..and another.and anotherand another.

What Doesn't Work:

- Chief Inspector Sir John. I know the guy was meant to be comic relief, but his buffoonish character has way too much screen time.

- Why Have Alligators? Previously, I mentioned the alligators in the pit. And while they are a nice touch, they serve very little purpose. Why go through all the trouble and not use them?

- Plodding Plot. Some of The College Girl Murders has no flow or rhythm to it. There are far too many moments throughout the movie when things come inexplicably to a screeching halt. Better pacing would have made this a much more enjoyable movie.

I haven't seen many of these German krimis but of the few I have seen (Phantom of Soho, Strangler of Blackmoor Castle, Dead Eyes of London) this may be my favorite. This one has a real funky feel to it that I really go into. Had the plot flowed a little better, I could have easily given The College Girl Murders a 7/10.


The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the 'I am not amused' impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.

As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.

Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt!


With the Terrible acting, the awful dialog, the multitude of bad humor, the crappy plot and over terrible film. This has to be the worst film i have ever viewed in my life, and i'm the king of finding bad movies. For the effects, they just threw fake blood on people and things, didn't spend the time to create wounds and make special effects worth anything. Most people making low budget horror flicks at least do something like clads of tissue or something to make a gashing wound. The dialog was far from even decent and the acting was without direction or effort. They just threw some actors on a set and said, have at it. I swear i've seen better films from my film I class at school. How did this ever get a DVD release?


I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.

I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!

Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.


Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I never watch them.

Let me tell you about my experience...

The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and her friends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.

...I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better than this...movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good...we actually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me...I have a problem with ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it was just other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.

After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, a movie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was not scary, and not stupid so it would be funny...it was just boring. It wasn't terrible like 'Baby Genuises' terrible, it was terrible like...not entertaining at all. Avoid.

Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industry these days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and not scary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is too bloody or too disgusting for people.

You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See 'The Grudge.' Avoid this movie like the plague...because it may literally bore you to death.

0/10


The only other film besides Soylent Green that has such an air of hopelessness is On the Beach. Both films deal with the consequences for the species and the planet from man made cataclysms. On the Beach with nuclear war and Soylent Green with the environmental poisoning of the planet.

Maybe there's cause for some optimism because as of 2007 we haven't reached either of the worlds described in those films and we were supposed to by now. New York City still has about 8 million people not the 22 million by the turn of the millenia as described in Soylent Green. Environmentalists always hail this film as showing the consequence of global warming. For myself it also shows the Right to Life ethic run amuck. Obviously there's no family planning in this world either.

Charlton Heston is an NYPD detective who lives with room mate Edward G. Robinson who's old enough to remember the Earth before catastrophe struck. There's been a murder committed, Joseph Cotten an executive with the Soylent Corporation, a multi-national concern that has come up with a food product, some kind of wafer in many colors to feed the world's population. It's latest product is Soylent Green.

The investigation finds Charlton Heston getting his man, but also it leads to some horrifying truths about the Soylent Corporation and the future of mankind. As Heston shouts in the end that Soylent Green is made of people, that we've become a race of cannibals, the horrifying thing is that there is no alternative. We've exhausted the planet and we have to eat our dead to survive.

This was the farewell performance of Edward G. Robinson and in his memoirs Heston spoke movingly of Robinson even though they had differing political views. A few weeks after Robinson wrapped that final scene of his screen demise by consented euthanasia, he passed away in real life. Not many did, but Heston knew that Robinson was terminally and there was no acting involved in that final death scene between the two of them.

Though the timetable was off, it doesn't mean that the world envisioned by Soylent Green may not come to pass. Hopefully we'll have not just the intelligence, but the sense of shared responsibility to keep that from happening.


You know, as you get older, you somehow think the movies you did not like when you were younger, might have been because of your youth and inexperience. Case in point, when I saw The Godfather at age 14, I thought it was boring. 20 years later, its an incredible movie to me. In other words, I grew up and began to appreciate great movies.

So I rented Dirty Dancing with my girlfriend last night on her request, as she loved it at age 14 and I hated it at the same age. But I hoped, because I was young and stupid at age 14, perhaps this would be a new experience for me. So I sat down with her to watch, hoping to be enlightened.

Well, the night after watching Dirty Dancing, I feel a violation. I feel like someone reached into my soul and robbed me of 2 hours of my life from watching this cheese fest.

First, Patrick Swayze plays a 20 year old, but he looks like he is 35. And the premise of the movie is him seducing some underage teenager, wooing her with his dance moves. Really Creepy.

Anyway, the movie is the cliché plot where the 'wrong side of the tracks' guy and the 'rich smart girl' accidentally fall in love with each other. Of course, their romance is fueled by the fact the 'rich girl' can't dance a lick, so the 'poor hero' teaches her in a week to become an expert dancer for the big end of vacation show, or something like that.

But you guessed it: The disapproving father soon enters and forbids the two to see each other, and the movie progresses to secret meetings of dance lessons and love making. This all culminates into the final scene where the entire resort rallies around the two young lovers while the once antagonistic father accepts the 35 year old dancer as his teen daughter's new man.

Even my girlfriend whimpered at the end of the movie as she admitted it was not anything like she remembered. I didn't press her, but I did smirk a little, and put the Godfather part II in the DVD player.


Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.

And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.


Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's 'Up Against Them All' ('Contra Todos') at the San Francisco Film Festival? 'It's about a hit man,' my friend said. 'Well. . . and it's Brazilian,' I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.

Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.

So how on earth did 'Contra Todos' get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.

First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.

Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called 'Contra Todos' 'a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil' and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the 'stud of the slum-like neighborhood.' Soninha is 'Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality.' The movie is 'shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera' and the director 'works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay.' The effect is ' unbearably raw and honest,' and the movie hurtles 'toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display.' Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.

'Contra Todos' does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming 'favelas' or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as 'Black Orpheus', 'Pixote,' and 'City of God' were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.

The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.

A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the 'film' (his quotes) was 'the worst of the video works' shown. 'The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film,' Sheehan wrote, 'and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium' -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.

Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it 'starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill.' Devastating, but true.

Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances 'easily the film's best feature.' Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that ' this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. .' Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to 'Dogme' and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.

Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just 'banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill' -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the 'banality of evil' of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material.

(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.)


One of my favorite movies of all times, have seen it three times already. It does a great job of summing up the Isrelai walks of life, Israeli humor, and seriousness, and much of the problems Israelis go through. Universal theme of wanting to be accepted, and be accepted for who you are. Good subtle humor, and it's the charisma of the characters, that makes this movie magic, and says a lot about Isrlaei culture, and the irnonicness, contradictions, and humor, with a great actor in it, Oshri Cohen. I highly recommend it to anyone, and it's a movie perfect for practically anyone, family movie, boyfriend/girlfriend movie, and also says apart from Israeli culture, wanting to be accepted, most of all, how important family is, with all its diversity and imperfections.

Great great movie.


I can see the guys doing the budget preparation for this flick. 'Well lets see now, we spend 50% getting Dirk Benidict, cause Battle Star Galactic and the A-Team were cool. The we spend 40% making a Demon Costume, never mind that the Demon is supposed to be incorporeal in the script. And we spend the rest making the movie.' This was pretty bad and VERY cliche.... Have a loved one present when watching (or bring a good book)


A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.

Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.


Well, I have not much to say about this film except that it was a truly wonderful film. Natalie Portman is absolutely fantastic as the daughter in this lovely mother-daughter relationship film.

Beautiful film.


This film is really unbelievable. I've seen so much cheap trash-movies, especially a lot 'Full Moon'-Pictures, but 'Dollman' is really hard. So much comes together: the laughable story, the actors always at the edge of parody and the special effects! How long I could talk about them! It is a really bad movie, but also one of the funniest ones. If you're a fan of bad movies to laugh about, you have to see it. And don't miss 'Dollman vs. Demonic Toys'. It really funnier and worse.


Ghost Town starts as Kate Barrett (Catherine Hickland) drives along an isolated desert road, her car suddenly breaks down & she hears horses hoofs approaching... Deputy Sheriff Langley (Frank Luz) of Riverton County is called in to investigate Kate's disappearance after her father reports her missing. He finds her broken down car & drives off looking for her, unfortunately his car breaks down too & he has to walk. Langley ends up at at a deserted rundown ghost town, much to his shock Langley soon discovers that it is quite literally a ghost town as it's populated by the ghosts of it's former residents & is run by the evil Devlin (Jimmie F. Skaggs) who has kidnapped Kate for reasons never explained & it's up to Langley to rescue her & end the towns curse...

The one & only directorial effort of Richard Governor this odd film didn't really do much for me & I didn't like it all that much. The script by Duke Sandefur tries to mix the horror & western genres which it doesn't do to any great effect. Have you ever wondered why there aren't more horror western hybrid films out there? Well, neither have I but if I were to ask myself such a question I would find all the answers in Ghost Town because it's not very good. The two genres just don't mix that well. There are plenty of clichés, on the western side of things there's the innocent townsfolk who are to scared to stand up to a gang of thugs who are terrorising them, the shoot-outs in the main street, saloon bars with swing doors & prostitutes upstairs & horror wise there's plenty of cobwebs, some ghosts, an ancient curse, talking corpses & a few violent kills. I was just very underwhelmed by it, I suppose there's nothing terribly wrong with it other than it's just dull & the two genres don't sit together that well. There are a few holes in the plot too, why did Devlin kidnap Kate? I know she resembled his previous girlfriend but how did he know that & what was he going to do with her anyway? We never know why this ghost town is full of ghosts either, I mean what's keeping them there & what caused them to come back as ghosts? Then there's the bit at the end where Devlin after being shot says he can't be killed only for Langley to kill him a few seconds later, I mean why didn't the bullets work in the first place?

Director Governor does alright, there's a nice horror film atmosphere with some well lit cobweb strewn sets & the standard Hollywood western town is represented here with a central street with wooden buildings lining either side of it. I wouldn't say it's scary because it isn't, there's not much tension either & the film drags in places despite being only just over 80 odd minutes in length. Forget about any gore, there a few bloody gunshot wounds, an after the fact shot of two people with their throats slit & someone is impaled with a metal pole & that's it.

I'd have imagined the budget was pretty small here, it's reasonably well made & is competent if nothing else. Credit where credit's due the period costumes & sets are pretty good actually. The acting is alright but no-ones going to win any awards.

Ghost Town is a strange film, I'm not really sure who it's meant to appeal to & it certainly didn't appeal to me. Anyone looking for a western will be annoyed with the dumb horror elements while anyone looking for a horror film will be bored by the western elements. It's something a bit different but that doesn't mean it's any good, worth a watch if your desperate but don't bust a gut to see it.


It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.


Honestly, when I saw this movie years ago I immediately wanted to turn it off. As I sat there for the next 10 minutes or so, I realized that the actor playing Navin stole the show. His facial expressions and comedic demeanor makes me shake my head as to WHY he hasn't been in more comedies. He has this 'Marty Feldman' thing going for him but MUCH, MUCH more talent...taking nothing away from Marty. The movie really shocked me by how close it was to the original Jerk, but then again, it was SO MUCH MORE. I really think that if this movie was released first, and I saw the Steve Martin movie 2nd, I'd think the 2nd was a cheap rip-off. I know it sounds like a BOLD statement, but it's true. I actually like Steve Martin a great deal, but his performance is 2nd to the actor in The Jerk Too. I wish I could get a copy of it for my collection. I urge you to see it if you can find it.


I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating.


Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.

Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.


This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.


I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the 'posession' side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.

I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over.


I am a big fan of Larkin's works, I believe that he was amid the greatest 20th century poets. The film itself does a great justice to the bard of Hull. Wonderfully portrayed by all the players in their roles. Bonneville does do a service to the sexually repressed Larkin, he avoids an impression and strays from becoming a caricature. The use of his poetry was the highlight of the piece itself. Rather than acting out the massive intensity with which Larkin felt, the use of his words themselves give a better insight into plot and add a much more sombre but altogether more fascinating atmosphere. Most enjoyable.


Haven't seen any of the Japanese Grudge-films, but I really enjoy this one. I rarely get SCARED when watching films. I can jump, if the effect and sound is startling enough, but getting scared from a movie is a rare thing for me. But I did get scared from Grudge. Maybe because I didn't expect anything at all when I watched it. I didn't expect getting scared. I didn't know anything about it either. That was probably a good thing.

This is a film that you, apparently, either love or hate. Most people seem to compare it to the Japanese Grudge-films, but even though I haven't seen them, I believe it isn't right to compare any film, actually. This film stands on it its own.

The story is weak, most people say. I don't agree. The story is minimalistic, and done so on purpose. The story-telling techniques used - the broken time frame for instance - is perfectly done. The director knows exactly what he's doing, and I believe he got his vision through as he wanted it.

I gave this film 8 of 10. It is a film you will enjoy watching, or hate. It's as simple as that.


In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed beforehand.

The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic, especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that resembles one in the previous year's '2001: A Space Odyssey', and that tends to date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show 'UFO,' which is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD.

Despite these small points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for some 1990s/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway.

Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library.


Dear Readers,

With High Expectations, Human Beings leave Earth to begin a new life in Space Colonies. However, The Allied Forces of the United Earth Sphere Alliance gain great military control over the colonies and soon seize one colony after another in the name of Justice and Peace...

The year is After Colony 195. Operation Meteor. In a move to counter the Alliance's tyranny, Rebel Forces from several colonies send new arsenals to Earth disguised as Shooting Stars...

However...The Alliance forces catch on...

Gundam Wing is the most popular and most successful of the entire Gundam Series. With cutting-edge Anime animation, stunning action, amazing Mobile Suits, Breathtaking scripts, and some of the most unforgettable characters in Anime History.

I'll try to explain the plot of Gundam Wing as best as possible. Earth has now colonized space, but the UESA forces have forcibly occupied them along with the help of the mysterious Elite Force OZ and their shadowy leaders, Treize Kushrenada and the Romefeller Foundation. Five pilots are sent to Earth piloting Mobile Suits with extraordinary power known as the Gundams. Pursued by the Mysterious Lieutenant Zechs Merquise, Treize's second-in-command, a young teenager named Relena, and the Alliance military, the Gundam pilots unleash hell upon Earth for the Freedom of the Colonies while all the while, a plot most sinister architected by Treize begins to start.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector


You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.

I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: 'Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life.' This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, 'Oprah,' backwards. Spielberg isn't above such 'cuteness.'

It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.


I loved the first two movies, but this movie was just a waste of time and money (for me and the studio). I'm still wondering why they made this horrible movie. The thing with the plastic gun and with the toy car, that can go into another house are ridiculous. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern in the first two movies were so funny, but the terrorists in this one are so stupid and not funny. Believe me this movie is just a waste of time.


I've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.


This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.

It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.

The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what

Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.

I left the cinema feeling cheated.

Needless to say i could not reccoemnd this film to anyone


Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2.


This movie shows how savage the troubles really are. People who do not want to be involved have no say in the way their lives are altered. This movie shows how the people of Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant are held captive. At any moment their lives may be changed forever whether they want to be involved or not.


I've heard nothing but great things about the 2006 television mini-series, 'Planet Earth,' narrated by my childhood idol David Attenborough. Nevertheless, whether it was screened down here in Australia or not, I never caught up with it, and when I happened upon the opportunity to see 'Earth (2007)'  a feature-length compilation of the same nature footage  on the big screen, I jumped at the chance. The theatre was basically empty; just one other patron sat in the row ahead of me, and it was as though I had, not only the big screen to myself, but, indeed, the entire planet Earth. For 90 minutes, I was lowered into the beauty and perils of the isolated wilderness, amongst some of the most beautiful living creatures ever captured on film. Awesome in its scope, and yet painfully intimate at times, 'Earth' is a heartfelt plea from the filmmakers to recognise the delicate balance of life on our planet, and how the intrusion of humans has placed countless glorious animal and plant species on the brink of extinction.

Though the film, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, obviously argues for the conservation of the wilderness, it refrains from beating us over the head with propaganda, and the puzzle that is politics is ignored altogether; indeed, there is not a human in sight. Instead, we are simply taken on a breathtaking journey into the majesty of the natural world, to experience the resilience, and also the fragility, of life on Earth. I hear that the original mini-series, which ran for eleven episodes, delves a lot deeper into the scientific background of world ecosystems, but I think that, here, the filmmakers made a wise decision to replace information with emotional impact: I can't remember the last time that I felt so inspired, and yet utterly heartbroken at the same time. By establishing an emotional link between the audience and a select few individual animals, anthropomorphising them to an extent, we are suddenly able to appreciate the 'human side' of each species, and their hopeless plight for survival becomes less a statistic and more an unacceptable tragedy.

'Earth' is basically comprised of a selection of dramatic episodes, whether it be the struggles of a female polar bear to lead her young cubs to the Arctic ice, or the tramp of an elephant herd towards the life-saving seasonal floodwaters of the Okavango Delta. The documentary demonstrates the delicate balance between life and death, most heartbreakingly exhibited in the desperate ballet of predator-prey interactions. Though occasionally, perhaps to cater towards a younger audience, the footage cuts itself short at the crucial moment, I regularly shed at tear at the inevitability of death in nature, and the raw instinct that fuels these animals' final, hopeless efforts at survival. There's even a haunting beauty to be found in the hunt, both in the slow-motion footage of a cheetah bringing down its prey {the result of a single fateful misstep}, or the majestic mid-air leap of a Great White Shark as it engulfs a hapless sea lion. It is this frail balance that has been fatally disrupted by the selfishness of our own species.

Aside from these main stories, we are also treated to brief snippets of wildlife from around the world, including the birds of paradise of Papua New Guinea, and the autumn migration of the demoiselle cranes. Of course, entire films might have been dedicated to these species alone, and an inevitable consequence of having to sift through so much footage is that some interesting ecosystems are glossed over far took quickly. By choosing to focus most closely on the polar bear, elephant and humpback whale  tracing their lifestyles, via some astonishing high-definition time-lapse photography, throughout a calender year  the filmmakers were able to avoid any structural problems that might arise from having so much to show, and only 90 minutes to show it. Consequently, 'Earth' left me thirsting for more, and, fortunately, I now have approximately eleven hours more, as soon as I can track down a copy of the DVD box-set for 'Planet Earth.' Uplifting and tear-jerking, awe-inspiring and heartrending, 'Earth' is a truly magnificent documentary experience, and it might just be my favourite film of 2007.


I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.


While it's one of two movies on Tales of Voodoo Volume 1, there's no voodoo or anything supernatural in it! The box labels it 'Hell Hole' but the screen title is Escape from Hell Hole. The title is confusingly similar to Hell Hole (1978) aka 'Escape from Women's Hell Hole' A group of women bathe in a river and seemingly the worst thing they have to worry about is a peeping tom, who they easily overpower. No nudity in this or any other scene, however.

A woman named Cardena drives up in a car and seems to be known and liked by all the women. She invites Indri to come and live in the city with her and her uncle M.G. Once they get there, it becomes clear that M.G. wants to take Indri's virginity. M.G. runs some sort of house of prostitution, and he's either in charge of a corrupt branch of the military, or runs a paramilitary outfit, or prefers for his guards to all wear military-style uniforms.

The women who refuse him or otherwise make trouble get put into a prison. Indri gets sent there. The women get tortured and sometimes possibly raped by the guards.

Various unsuccessful attempts at escape or rescue are made, but inevitably fail despite the obvious advantages the women have: they outnumber the guards vastly, and relatively few of the guards have automatic weapons - most have semi-automatic rifles or handguns.

WIP genre enthusiasts may like it, and the fact that it was made in the Philippines gives it some novelty, but otherwise... eh.