Beautiful to watch, but what would be the first thing you would do the moment YOU discovered Atlantis? Explore it! Here was a golden opportunity to take viewers someplace special. Instead, Disney reverted to the same old formula story telling.


After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as ' what is your name would be repeated N times'.

Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.


I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think 'oh poor children, they're being exploited' - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time.

By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion.

You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times.


Having seen Versus previously I had high hopes for Alive. The description of the movie on the back of the DVD jacket sounded promising. Alive did not deliver. VERY slow development. Loads of potential with the cast and the cool visuals. The premise was intriguing but the payoff did not offset the build up. Could have done so much more at the end. Most of the movie is just ' sitting around '. To put it plainly, three of us were amped to sit down and watch this movie and by the 50 minute mark we were struggling to make it thru to the end. It really needed more shock elements. If you are looking for Ichi the Killer or Versus type fights then save yourself some $ and loads of disappointment.


A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term 'problem child' - a few uears prior to the 'action' the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.

Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.

One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour 'Love, Lies And Murder' (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a 'You must be joking' credit.


The cast and crew of this cheap horror potboiler are more interesting than anything that occurs throughout the movie itself; we have Barbara Payton, Raymond Burr, Lon Chaney Jr., Tom Conway, Paul Cavanaugh and Woody Strode in front of the camera and writer-director Curt Siodmak, cinematographer Charles Van Enger, editorial supervisor Francis D. Lyon and production assistant Herman Cohen behind it. The ill-fated Payton turns the head of virtually every male she comes in contact with deep in the African jungle where she lives on husband Cavanaugh's plantation: doctor Conway secretly desires her while hot-headed foreman Burr's approach is, quite literally, more hands-on. On the other hand, Chaney is (surprisingly enough) the laid-back but knowing authoritarian figure and Strode is a native police official. The plot is very simple but, frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense: after a particularly agitated dinner complete with thunderstorm, Burr and Cavanaugh (art imitating life  more on that later) come to blows in the garden over their affection for Payton and, conveniently for Burr, a large snake just happens to be crawling near where Cavanaugh hits the ground! Witnessing the event from behind the bushes, Payton's enigmatic maid (a native witch, no less), for some inexplicable reason, puts a curse on Burr (who has in the meantime married Payton) that periodically turns him into a gorilla...starting from his very wedding day (when his hand briefly turns hirsute)! Consequently, Burr takes to losing himself in the jungle for days on end  even if the ape creature itself is barely glimpsed throughout the film. It must be said, however, that the version that I watched ran for just 56 minutes when the 'official' length is elsewhere given as either 66, 70 or 76!! Therefore, the film feels understandably rushed and disjointed if never less than campily enjoyable as it culminates in the gorilla's subjectively-shot chasing of Payton in the jungle, with the former being itself pursued by the gun-toting Chaney and Conway. To get back to the film's tragic blonde leading lady for a minute: after a promising start in movies next to such Hollywood legends as James Cagney and Gary Cooper  in, respectively, KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE and DALLAS (both 1950)  her career soon nose-dived into B (and lesser) grade territory thanks to her own 'colorful' off-screen antics: her most notorious misdemeanor was being the cause of a much-publicized bar-room brawl between suave husband Franchot Tone and brutish former lover Tom Neal which ended with the former in a coma and Payton actually deserting him for the latter shortly thereafter!! But that was not all: nymphomaniac Payton also boasted that Woody Strode was among her conquests (a controversial issue at the time); short-lived husband Tone, having caught Payton's infidelities on camera, spread the damning photographic evidence around Hollywood and this virtually served to end her days as a starlet  her last film appearance being Edgar G. Ulmer's MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955) which I happen to have in my 'Unwatched Movies' pile. The last 12 years of her tumultuous life were spent on Skid Row in the throes of booze, drugs, prostitution, beatings, arrests and even a stabbing  before, eventually, dying in 1967 in her parents' home at the young age of 39!


Such a pretentious and lame attempt to hipness. Diabolical script and dialogue and truly embarrassing acting. Really the worse movie I have ever seen(at the cinema). Nothing in my opinion saves this movie from being a total disaster. I saw it when it came out in a cinema in Brighton. People were walking out and there were more people chatting outside the toilets than in the auditorium! At the end there were boos and scorn from the meagre crowd left, which was quite sad as relatives of one of the main actors were present and looked really sheepish. However the movie was that bad that I really could not feel like that sympathetic with them. Everybody has to start from somewhere and their son started off his acting career with this truly awful attempt at 'Tarantinism made in the UK'. 5 years have gone bye, but sometimes I still cringe at the memory of that sad night at the movies! This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever! I gave it a 1 as 0 was not available. They should invent a 'shameometer' for everybody involved in this sorry mess of a movie. I know some of them have moved on to better things, the positive thing is that none of them could have sank any lower than this.


My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him.

***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.

A must see for someone in the mental health profession!


The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie 'based' on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow', but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, 'witchcraft' meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship 'an'-it-harm-none' approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough', if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.


I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...


Steven Seagal....how could you be a part of such an awful film? I rented this movie because your movies usually have been pretty clean. I have lost a lot of respect for you being in an awful movie such as this one. Very, very poor taste! I am embarrassed that I even rented this movie. Steven, if you keep acting in movies like this one, I believe that your career is over. My husband and I have enjoyed watching many of your movies because you always can 'get the bad guy' with a few hand maneuvers and make it clean...and also the language is pretty clean in your movies...but this one is something else. I will think twice before I rent another movie of yours.


Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.

Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.

Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in 'Marianne' (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.

Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- 'Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies' (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that 'one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents.' Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).

Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.

And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great 'Citizen Kane,' she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.

But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the 'Susan Alexander' facsimile of the real article.

Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.


I agree that this film wasted my time and my money. The poster mislead me to thinking it was a different type of movie. I should have known given the unprofessional look of the poster. Someone should sue for false advertising.


for everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!


quite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.


I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.

I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.

Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.

Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.

In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...

I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...


Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished 'packages',a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of 'product' and craft a personal work of art. Of course there has always been the 'Art for art's sake - money for Christ's sake' ethos in film-making,but now 'Ars Gratia Artis' has,in all but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century ago,having made the hugely influential,'Laura','Where the sidewalk ends' and 'The moon is blue',he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel 'The man with the golden arm' in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in 'From here to eternity',the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called 'The Life',in truth a murky area occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in 'The Life',and it's dog eats dog down there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success as many actors subsequently 'doing' cold turkey have,with the passing of the years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in 'It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world'. Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger.


Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.

Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.

So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.

Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.


This movie will likely be too sentimental for many viewers, especially contemporary audiences. Nevertheless I enjoyed this film thanks mostly to the down-to-earth charm of William Holden, one of my favorite stars, and the dazzling beauty of Jennifer Jones. There are some truly heartwarming scenes between the pair and the talent of these two actors rescues what in lesser hands could've been trite lines. The cinematography of Hong Kong from the period of filming is another highlight of this movie. All in all, a better than average romantic drama, 7/10.


Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.

Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.

We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.

So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.

This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.

It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.

This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.

And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?

Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.

For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.

This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes.


This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film.


This film, based on the book by Pascal Laime' -La Dentelliere- is an acclaimed film of excellent cinematography and costly Italian language. Set in a 'scholastic' 19th Century, Balzac-style set, it portraits the story of a mad love story: a man and a woman. There is an infamous line at this shadowy-Mussolinni strike which reads: 'She does not smell like tomatoes.' Sage perfumery of this Italian masterpiece, Scola is a director of the stature of Mussolinni: his cake will jump in your strawberries and if you let this director he will cream your olives as a Superman. Remember Nietzsche? This one will scare the HELL out of YOU: don't forget to visit Mussolinni's cake next to the Colisseum in Rome, across the Via Appia. This movie will wipe your Pampers inside-out and outside-in, it will make you cry out of Romantic joy! If you liked Ulysses, you will wipe it good with these strawberries until the end of the roll. Enjoy!


'THE KING OF QUEENS,' in my opinion, is a pure CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it very much. For that reason, it's hard for me to say which episode is my favorite. Even so, I must say that CBS really knows how to make a good sitcom. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gives a good performance, the production design is spectacular, the costumes are well-designed, and the writing is always very strong. In conclusion, if this show lives on in syndication after it goes off CBS, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.


This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - 'It's about family. It's always been about family'?

The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.

Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.


Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4/10


Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less 'action packed'. To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.

Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...


This documentary is not only one of the best documentaries I've seen, but also one of the most moving and quietly beautiful movies I've seen period. It follows the lives of two Sudanese young men, Peter and Santino, as they try to make their way into the American culture. Peter and Santino are friends at first, but they gradually drift more and more apart, as Peter goes to Kansas City, and Santino stays in Houston ('a land called Houston'). Santino's beauty is in his eyes. He takes people onto his back, he supports an apartment full of other Sudanese, paying the rent, doing everything for other people. He is a quiet sufferer. Peter looks out for himself, getting a high school education while playing basketball and making Christian friends. It seems that director Megan Mylan did not know what she was getting herself into with the beauty of this tale. Peter and Santino are amazing characters that move you. But the real strength in this movie lies in its commentary on American society. It is not judging. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of our world, and how difficult it can be to outside people. I suggest you find this film, and look at America through the lives of these two fascinating and beautiful people.

My grade: 10/10


This movie had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch this one.


As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: 'Then I woke up' and 'Then I Got Run Over by a Truck.' I am now going to add, 'Then I got a bump on the head.' I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.


I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.

The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.

Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from 'Dawson's Creek'.

If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.


''Ranma ½' is my favorite anime by Rumiko Takahashi. The woman really knows how to entertain us with a good story, that is not only a comedy, but also an action anime. The main character of the story is Ranma Saotome, a teenager boy who is also an expert in martial arts. Ranma is engaged to Akane because of an arrangement of both fathers, who are great friends and trained together during many years.

Akane is the younger and most violent sister of the Tendo's: Kasumi is the oldest and is very sweet and Nabiki is the middle and loves to win money no matter what.

Ranma and Akane fight all the time,specially because both have a very bad temper, and when they discover that Ranma becomes a girl when splashed with cold water as well as his father becomes a panda,many new characters and situations starts to happen. They also discover the reason of the transformation: while fighting, Ranma and his father fell in a cursed river. But not only them had this kind of fate...

If you watched ''Ranma 1/2'' and liked, I would recommend you ''Inuyasha'' and ''Maison Ikkoku', two other good creations from Rumiko's hands.


What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.

Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.

Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in 'Killer Tongue,' if you have not seen that yet.

The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.

So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with 'Crocodile' after this is rather sad. 'Night Terrors' is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.


IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known.


Ever wonder where that episode, 'Tuttle,' came from in the middle of the first season of M*A*S*H? Well now the cat's out of the bag: they got it from this Soviet film, a satire on how dumb the Tsar is, due to the slip of a pen (rendering the phrase 'the Lieutenants, though ...' into 'Lieutenant Kizhe' which has no meaning) and nobody being honest or gutsy enough to contradict him and just tell him the truth -- Kizhe doesn't exist and never did. So they make up an imaginary life for him and eventually kill him off. And 40 years later, David Ketchum and Bruce Shelly borrowed this zany plot and gave us essentially the same story, only on the other side of what had become the Cold War, proving that people in high positions can be equally dumb no matter what their loyalties may be!


From the first to the last scene of the movie, director Visconti excels at his art, to the extent that the movie is ensured to remain as a cultural treasure for only God knows how long. It is perfection - as a movie, that is, but the story has some minor shortcomings.

Thomas Mann's novel is also a perfect piece of art, so of course it is impossible to bring into another media. Visconti follows the story pretty much, and it is only when he allows himself to deviate slightly, that the transition falters. And no matter how wonderful the scenery is, the tension in the air between the characters, the hundreds of subtle signals and allegories, the almost unbearably heightened serving of Mahler's music - still, the minute anomalies in the plot disturb me.

Maybe I'm just a victim of man's desire to flaw the flawless. Nevertheless, I will offer one example, which I regard as crucial.

WARNING: SPOILERS

In Mann's story, Aschenbach eats the strawberries which probably contain the disease that will kill him, after giving up his frustrated chase of the boy Tadzio in Venice. Unable to catch one delight, he settles for another - which poisons him. It is very subtle in the book, but it is there. The forbidden fruit, of sorts, but more a sign of him surrendering life itself.

In Visconti's film, he also eats strawberries, but in a rather insignificant scene by the beach. The chase in Venice ends in a much more melodramatic way. It works, too, but lacks some subtlety, indeed, and also the multi-layered symbolism, giving food for thought.

But that's all forgiven, when the film allows us to feast on beautiful sceneries, faces and constellations, and certainly as many other symbols as we can possibly digest - the last gesture of Tadzio, standing in the water, being the equally sublime and mysterious finale.


'Cinderella' is one of the most beloved of all Disney classics. And it really deserves its status. Based on the classic fairy-tale as told by Charles Perrault, the film follows the trials and tribulations of Cinderella, a good girl who is mistreated by her evil stepmother and equally unlikable stepsisters. When a royal ball is held and all eligible young women are invited (read: the King wants to get the Prince to marry), Cinderella is left at home whilst her stepmother takes her awful daughters with her. But there is a Fairy Godmother on hand...

The story of 'Cinderella' on its own wouldn't be able to pad out a feature, so whilst generally staying true to the story otherwise, the fairly incidental characters of the animals whom the Fairy Godmother uses to help get the title character to the ball become Cinderella's true sidekicks. The mice Jaq and Gus are the main sidekicks, and their own nemesis being the stepmother's cat Lucifer. Their antics intertwine generally with the main fairy-tale plot, and are for the most part wonderful. Admittedly, the film does slow down a bit between the main introduction of the characters and shortly before the stepsisters depart for the ball, but after this slowdown, the film really gets going again and surprisingly (since 'Cinderella' is the most worn down story of all time, probably) ends up as one of the most involving Disney stories.

The animation and art direction is lovely. All of the legendary Nine Old Men animated on this picture, and Mary Blair's colour styling and concept art (she also did concept art and colour styling for 'Alice in Wonderland', 'Peter Pan', 'The Three Caballeros' and many many others) manage to wiggle their way on screen. The colours and designs are lovely, especially in the Fairy Godmother and ball scenes, as well as in those pretty little moments here and there.

Overall, 'Cinderella' ranks as one of the best Disney fairy-tales and comes recommended to young and all that embodies the Disney philosophy that dreams really can come true.


It's been 3 months and you know what that means...A new Seagal movie. Seagal has really been on role making horrible film after horrible film. Each time every movie getting worse and worse, he's really amazing! I don't really know what to say about TYD, first it's a piece of crap, the story makes no sense at all, secondly he uses stunt men in all his fight scenes, and last but not least a lot of the footage is taken from other movies! It amazes how this guy continues to find work, he comes to the set late and leaves early and because of that his films are full of plot holes and stunt men. Why do we continue to buy his movies, why do we continue to have hope that maybe just maybe he will make a great movie?


I decided to watch this movie because it has been noted as the 'scariest movie ever' so, that's what I expected. Unfortunately, what I found out is that the movie didn't have a single scary moment in it (and I'm the kind of person who jumps very easily). The movie was nothing but terrible clichés and every time there was a jump-moment it was incredibly obvious. The pros of this movie would be the music and the odd scene thats actually shot well (like the very last scene when she opens the door and you see Tun in the reflection and when it swings back to him you see the ghost on his shoulders). Overall, this movie really added nothing new to the J-Horror genre and all-around lacked creativity and scares.


'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories.


The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.


I'm astounded and dismayed by the number of reviewers on this site who did not get the point of Black Snake Moan. It's not about black/white relationships or old/young relationships, though I think director Craig Brewer deliberately threw in both elements to tweak imagined taboos. It's not about sexual abuse or sex addiction, though Christina Ricci's character, Rae, typifies those. It's not about folk religion in the black community, though religion plays a large role. It's not a love story, though there are not one, but two happy couples at the end. And it's certainly not about the south, where 'everything is hotter,' though it's set in the south and it's undeniably hot; holy smokes, even the tag-line writers didn't get the point.

Black Snake Moan is a parable about Mississippi Delta Blues; who feels them, who writes them, who plays them, what they're playing about, how it heals them.

It's as though the film producers sat down with a blank slate and asked, 'Ok, if we were going to help people understand what the Blues are really about, what would it look like?' So they set it in the rural south. Then they dream up two characters, one whose wife left him to live with his best friend, the other who goes off to war and his badly abused girl sleeps with everybody in town. Then, we throw in grizzled worldliness touched just a little by folk religion (they know Jesus wants their lives, and though they respect Him, they know they can't give Him that), some violence between men and women, and lots and lots of steamy sexual images, including -- ready to go over the top? -- a black man in a sleeveless undershirt holding a half-naked white girl captive on the end of a 40 lb chain. Fill it with authentic delta blues sounds, make it about a genuine blues picker, use music as the main healing element in the plot, slap clips of blues-man Son House on both ends, and Voila -- you have a modern parable about what the Blues are all about. Even the film's climax is not character conflict, but the whole town dancing steamy dances to hot, raunchy blues.

Of course, there's a bit of a dilemma here. Rae (Ricci) is being destroyed by uncontrollable lust, and is being healed by Lazarus' (Jackson's) homey religion and steadfastness (and don't forget the chain.) But then, we're shown the restored Rae dancing raunchily to blues at the end. Is this an expression of a restored, healthy life force, or just more of the same trashy behavior that ruined her in the first place? Brewer wants it both ways, but blues really is about sex and violence, not to mention depression. I suppose he would say blues gives healthy expression to both (sex and violence) without unleashing either. I have my doubts.

Not for the first time, Samuel L Jackson plays so well that we forget we're watching Samuel L Jackson; the man is unbelievably good. He even picks some of his own tunes in the film, and his playing is authentic, dirty, and hot. Christina Ricci isn't usually this good, either. Granted, half her job is done by the Costume That Wasn't There and her slinky figure, but she's a marvelous combination of cynical lust, rebellion, and vulnerability; bravo to her, she's arrived. I was impressed by the country preacher, John Cothran, Jr. I had to check the database to assure myself that he's a professional actor and not a genuine country minister.

Parents need to be aware of what they're getting if their kids bring this one home. The language is pretty far off the charts, the first half-hour is full of graphic sex, and women are violated in a dozen ways during the course of the film (Lazarus means well and is decent, but honestly, chaining a woman to the radiator?) Plus, Ricci spends half the movie dressed for sex; if you've got teenage boys, they'll be licking the screen halfway into the film. I don't recommend this for kids of any age. Adults only, please.

That being said, Black Snake Moan is informative and accurate about blues, folk religion, and sexual abuse, and tells a tale that's redemptive in lots of ways. It's unorthodox, but well worth the time. And, my goodness, is the sound track hot.


I saw this movie with low expectations and was not disappointed. Its so bad that it is actually funny in a very cringe worthy way.

Gael is absolutely terrible, I mean he just cannot act, period. He should give up now, as acting is clearly not his thing.. His co-stars are about the same caliber, i'm sure my 5 year old cousin could do a better job than all of them! The director should be ashamed to have put his name on something so ridiculous.. Somehow I don't think an Oscar is on the cards for this guy.

I have never written a comment on IMDb, but this movie was so bad I felt compelled to do so.

If you get the chance to see this film, don't 0/10 if there was a 0


I know no one cares, but I do. This film is historic for one reason. It is the unity of two heroes from two great seventies sci-fi films. Well, one is great, and one is quite bad. The great one is truly great, in fact it's the best. The bad one is truly bad, in fact it's the worst. Of course of the great I refer to 'Star Wars' and it's star Mark Hamill, aka 'Luke Skywalker', who is the hero of this film about a kid who gets his Vette swiped and then goes to Vegas (on a lead) and after a whole lot of adventures, eventually recovers it. (Since he's into fixing cars I guess you can call him 'Lube Skywalker'). Along the way he meets a hooker with a heart of gold, and ends up facing off with a character played by Kim Milford, the hero from the seventies sci-fi cult film 'Laserblast', which is, as I've hinted at earlier, the worst sci-fi film ever made. Milford plays the lead baddie whom Hamill must steal his car back from. I realize that no one cares about this meeting of two great sci-fi heroes, but I do. And I also must say that this is one of the best/worst movies of all time. Mark Hamill's acting needs the force, the plot needs extensive Jedi training, and the character of the hooker played by Annie Potts just might be the most annoying character of all time, ever, in any film I've ever seen. But it's a fun movie to watch on a weekend day, or a weekday night, late at night, very late. It's one of those films that meanders, looking for something but without quite finding it and yet, at the same time, it's entire purpose is, like free-form jazz, to simply exist as is. And it does. And what is, isn't that great, but you can't say it isn't entertaining, because for an hour and a half you might feel ripped off, but you won't feel cheated. So turn off your mind, relax, and enjoy this muddled gem without any expectations, and may the force be with you, always.


This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.


**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

	Jason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on 'lab equipment' that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library musicthe movie's high pointlater turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey.


Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in 'Lumage' (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version  there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release  since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities.


Even for sci-fi this movie is movie is a little out there. Alright, more than a little... My first thought after watching it was that i had just lost my mind.

Don't watch this movie expecting another Darko. Darko fans are never going to like another Richard Kelly movie because of their freaky cult standards. Donnie Darko is a thing of the past, get over it.

Richard Kelly loves making movies that make you feel stupid for not understanding the 'Deeper meaning' the first time you watch them. To be honest I had to watch The Box twice before I liked it.

The deeper meaning- (to spare you a bunch of sociological psycho babble) Humans are self serving, we make decisions that can destroy our lives and don't open mail without a return address.

Summary: Creepy old man tells Cammeron Diaz if you push the button i will kill someone you don't know and give you a million bucks. Of course she pushes it and as promised by the creepy old gets a case of money. Then the movie takes a dive into the unusual. To spare my fingers the typing... For pushing the button, Diaz and her husband are cursed by supernatural alien beings, in an elaborate experiment to gage the morality of the human race.

I liked: The willingness of the movie to ignore the generic movie guidelines. Its different. Its intense. It has a deeper meaning (although its philosophy 101 material). It leaves you guessing. NOT A Hollywood ENDING!

I disliked: Why would any being with the technology to inhibit another life form devise such a ridiculous scheme? What god like alien has the patience for that? Diaz was good, but was there a need for the country accent? They live in Virginia.

I give it a 7 because Kelly didn't put as much attention to detail as with his other movies. Overall good flick.


watch a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq count down their time before they can go home.

That in itself sounds boring. Every time that little caption came up telling us how long they had left, it just caused this film with no plot to drag on and on. hurry up and finish your time there so we can all go home.

I must be missing something. I'm a great fan of war films if they are done well. This had 'jarhead' syndrome. A film that at times was beautifully shot, but cinematography doesn't stop it from being totally dull and pointless.

And get over the slow mo 'cartridges coming out of the gun' shot already. they could have saved money and just got stock footage from any other film with a gun in it.

I didn't have any empathy for the main guy in it, i was constantly hoping that his recklessness would cause him to die. In fact the film would have worked much better if he had.

I read some reviews and seemed to get the feeling that those who had been in the armed forces disliked it, and everyone else loved it. I have never been in the forces, and I'm with them. It's pretentious drivel. the 3 stars are for the cinematography.


Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as 'Power Rangers' and you have this film from 1990, 'Robot Jox'. A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.


Except for the appearance of talented Austin Powers impersonator Richard Halpern, this pic was your run of the mill movie spoof. Dated movie references will not help audiences that may come across this endeavor in future. Watch for 'Groovy' Austin Powers in the hot tub. It's a hoot and a half.

Poor special effects are overcome by the appearance of numerous starlets in skimpy outfits, so at least that should keep one entertained (if that's what thrills you).

For my money, I would rent the DVD of classic spoofs such as 'Airplane' or 'Lobster Man from Mars'.


OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.


This movie is a classic in every sense of the word. It is very entertaining and also very disturbing. The acting in this movie is well done. The story itself is believable, suspenseful, and well thought out. Character development is also done well, the audience can clearly see how each of the characters is emotionally tested through this film. The villains in this movie are very threatening, from the first moment the audience sees them they can tell that they are up to something. This movie shows how a human being, when taken from civilization and put in the middle of the woods, facing a life or death situation can slowly become almost as wild and feral as the animals that inhabit it. Not everyone is going to like this film, there is a lot of disturbing content that may make some viewers uncomfortable. It is definitely worth watching. This movie is a masterpiece.


I was forced to read this sappy 'love story' between a German 24 year old POW and a 12 year old Jew. That has 'political correctness' written all over it. Its kind of like the movie 'SPIRIT' in which a horse wants to be free but those 'evil' Americans wont let it because they need it. Well i have good news the Americans are 'evil' in The German soldier and his summer book. Why!!! Horses where given to us by god and if the Americans needed a horse the can darn well use it. In the same sense the German had been trying to kill Americans, but this book/movie makes it seem OK! The casting is absolutely awful!!!!!!!!!!!! The girl is Hispanic the mother is white the dad it probubly from mostly white descent and the little sister is 'shirley templish.' The acting is pretty bad too, the serious parts become comedy! Concluson-Bad movie, bad book, but both have different endings, don't read or see either one!


I was curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.

What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: 'Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me' Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.


Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare.


NO SPOILERS.

I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it 'a movie' is also a stretch. This 'random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together' is not worth watching.

Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.

Terrible.


I had been waiting eagerly to see this movie, but when I finally got the chance, I was very disappointed. I had to stop half-way (or was it quarter-way?) because of the poor script and directing. Not to mention the poor cast! Josh Hartnett is the only one who can act, and he's much more suitable to be the hero of the story.

Well, basically the story is just about a loose girl from the country who cheated on her long-time decent boyfriend only to have meaningless sex with a spoiled rich brat. This movie failed to draw my sympathy, not even when the writer intended to. I wonder where the moral values go?

The actors are so stiff that when I resume the movie (few weeks after it was interrupted due to its boring nature), they still failed to make me pay attention. The spoiled couple can only disgust me! What a movie!

I think all the people involved in this production need to sit down and review it together so that they won't make the same mistakes next time round. And next time they might consider Josh Hartnett as the protagonist...


Haggard: The Movie is the real life story of Ryan Dunn, and his girlfriend who cheated on him, also with the help from his two friend, 1. A skate boarder who lives for nothing, and, 2. A trying-to-be funny scientist (which doesn't really work) played by Bam Margera and Brandom Dicamillo.

The film Haggard The Movie also has a lot of the characters from Jackass, etc, but to say it was written by Bam Margera and Co. this is a very weak attempt, seems to me like it was written when he was bored, or as a project with they did not pay a lot of attention to.

The films also stars Bam's girlfriend Jennifer Rivell, who plays Glauren, Ryan's girlfriend who basically cheated on him, again very bad acting by Jennifer, another actor that some people may be interested in is Steve a.k.a Hellboy, played by RakeYohn, which his character does not seem to be with the story, again bad acting, also this character does not really have a lot of lines in this film which basically makes it very boring. but worst of all, is Raab's character, the voice sound like a smoker who basically has throat cancer, also i think he could have been improved! Overall i think the characters in this film aren't with the story, like in one scene, it would be on one certain character, a minute later, a different scene, different character.

To say that this is supposed to be a film, sort of a documentary, its not played by the characters as a documentary, the acting makes you think that its a cheap attempt at making a film with your spare time.

Towards the middle of the film we start to lose focus on the main character Ryan Dunn, although a lot of the attention is on Bam and Brandon.

In conclusion this film is OK, if you laugh at things that aren't very funny, stupid stunts, terrible acting and the occasional nude scene!, Also i think there there are too many scenes of just no talking and just music! 7/10


The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.

If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.

Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid.


Van Dien must cringe with embarrassment at the memory of this ludicrously poor film, as indeed must every single individual involved. To be honest I am rather embarrassed to admit I watched it from start to finish. Production values are somewhere between the original series of 'Crossroads' and 'Prisoner Cell Block H'. Most five year olds would be able to come up with more realistic dialogue and a more plausible plot. As for the acting performances, if you can imagine the most rubbish porno you have ever seen - one of those ones where the action is padded out with some interminable 'story' to explain how some pouting old peroxide blonde boiler has come to be getting spit-roasted by a couple of blokes with moustaches - you will have some idea of the standard of acting in 'Maiden Voyage'. Worse still, you can't even fast forward to the sex scenes, because there aren't any. An appallingly dreadful film.


Having seen this without knowing all the hoopla surrounding the lead character, indeed without even knowing that it was based on real-life events, I must say I am impressed. 'Murder in Greenwich' is an above average production for a made-for-TV movie - the acting is uniformly great, Christopher Meloni in particular putting in a stand-out performance and the teen actors excel in what are difficult roles. The idea of the dead girl narrating the movie is a stroke of genius which elevates the movie from merely good to excellent. The script is exemplary for what is essentially movie-of-the-week fodder and the cinematography is beautiful.


Fairly good movie, but not a true story.

Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: 'Pass a lie test and go free'. He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?

Jens


'Kramer vs. Kramer' is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then, the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. 'Kramer vs. Kramer' has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure. Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here. Most people say his performance in 'Rainman', which won him his second Oscar, is his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in 'Kramer vs. Kramer' as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress where she lost to co-star Streep). 'Kramer vs. Kramer' is a great film from start to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely unforgettable.

**** (out of four)


This movie has it all. It is a classic depiction of the events that surrounded the migration of thousands of Cuban refugees. Antonio Montana(played by Al Pacino), is just one of the thousands to get a chance to choose his destiny in America. This cinematic yet extremely accurate depiction of Miamis' Drug Empire is astonishing. Brian DePalma does an amazing job directing this picture, so much that, the viewer becomes involved with both the storyline, as well as every character in the cast. With Tony's characters' pressence being so believable and strong, Brian DePalma brang out the raw talent exposed by Steven Bauer(Manny, Tony's best Friend), Mary Elizabeth Mastantonio(Gina, Tony's Sister), Robert Loggia(Frank, Tony's Boss)and Michelle Pfeiffer(Elvira, Frank's Wife). I enjoyed every minute watching this movie, and still watch it on a weekly basis. On this year, the 20th Anniversary of this classic crime movie, I for one am a true believer that in another 20 years people will still refer to this movie in astonishing numbers. With other crime movies being so dramatic I find, this movie is a shock to the system.


How viewers react to this new 'adaption' of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards 'special effects' being the first and last word in how 'good' a film is, are going to love it.

Things I did not like about this adaption:

1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is...'We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too.'

2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been 'born bad'. No, instead, this 'doctor' got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their 'insomnia' (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.

3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies 'some houses are just born bad', this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first 'victim' died before ever setting eyes on it.

4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's 'history')...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.

5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.

6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.

7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no 'companion', and there was no nursery. There was also no 'Grace' (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).

In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word 'house' for 'movie'!): 'This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!' My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.


In the tradition of G-Men, The House On 92nd Street, The Street With No Name, now comes The FBI Story one of those carefully supervised films that showed the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the best possible light. While it's 48 year director J. Edgar Hoover was alive, it would be showed in no other kind of light.

The book by Don Whitehead that this film is based on is a straight forward history of the bureau from it's founding in 1907 until roughly the time the film The FBI Story came out. It's important sometimes to remember there WAS an FBI before J. Edgar Hoover headed it. Some of that time is covered in the film as well.

But Warner Brothers was not making a documentary so to give the FBI flesh and blood the fictional character of John 'Chip' Hardesty was created. Hardesty as played by James Stewart is a career FBI man who graduated law school and rather than go in practice took a job with the bureau in the early twenties.

In real life the Bureau was headed by William J. Burns of the Burns Private Detective Agency. It was in fact a grossly political operation then as is showed in the film. Burns was on the periphery of the scandals of the Harding administration. When Hoover was appointed in 1924 to bring professional law enforcement techniques and rigorous standards of competence in, he did just that.

Through the Hardesty family which is Stewart and wife Vera Miles we see the history of the FBI unfold. In addition we see a lot of their personal family history which is completely integrated into the FBI's story itself. Stewart and Miles are most assuredly an all American couple. We follow the FBI through some of the cases Stewart is involved with, arresting Ku Klux Klan members, a plot to murder oil rich Indians, bringing down the notorious criminals of the thirties, their involvement with apprehending Nazi sympathizers in World War II and against Communist espionage in the Cold War.

There is a kind of prologue portion where Stewart tells a class at the FBI Academy before going into the history of the bureau as it intertwines with his own. That involves a bomb placed on an airline by a son who purchased a lot of life insurance on his mother before the flight. Nick Adams will give you the creeps as the perpetrator and the story is sadly relevant today.

Of course if The FBI Story were written and produced today it would reflect something different and not so all American. Still the FBI does have a story to tell and it is by no means a negative one.

The FBI Story is not one of Jimmy Stewart's best films, but it's the first one I ever saw with my favorite actor in it so it has a special fondness for me. If the whole FBI were made up Jimmy Stewarts, I'd feel a lot better about it. There's also a good performance by Murray Hamilton as his friend and fellow agent who is killed in a shootout with Baby Face Nelson.

Vera Miles didn't just marry Stewart, she in fact married the FBI as the film demonstrates. It's dated mostly, but still has a good and interesting story to tell.


To paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline.


The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star 'decent' flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

This genre has been more successfully handled by 'Nobody's Fool' in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) 'About Schmidt.' I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.

I'll give it an 'A' for effort.


This movie is finally out on DVD in Italy (completely restored). I have seen this movie so many times and I find it even actual these days (2003) when Italy suffers again from a sort of brainwashing dictatorship (or the US for that matter). I am glad there are outcasts as the one played by Mastroianni in this movie who can sing out of tune; maybe they can teach the Sophia Lorens of this world how to be strong and fight to be recognised as human beings.

Back to the movie: as most people here already mentioned the acting is wonderful but the audio background is astonishing. I must assume that unfortunately something is lost if you don't understand the Italian language but I can assure you that the show-off of machism, the distortion of reality in that ever-present radio-chronicle of the Hitler visit to Rome can really make you shiver!

A masterpiece!


This is a 1972 Disney movie. For the time, I was eleven years old and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Feeling nostalgic, I purchased the three series DVD's of the Dexter Riley movies and even now, at age 46, I still enjoyed them. It was all about fantasy, magic, and clean fun. And it still is! I wasn't sure which of the three movies came first then second and last. So now I have the official dates. On December 31, 1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes--On July 12, 1972 Now You See Him Now You Don't--On February 6, 1975 The Strongest Man In The World. I still think the middle movie was the best. The special effects were amazing back in 1972 to us kids. I definitely recommend it to all ages.


Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, 'Oh, God'. I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.


The reason why this movie isn't any better known and more appreciated to me seems because of its subject. Because of its controversial subject this movie never got a proper big release and still remains a fairly unknown one to this very day. Not that it's subject is that controversial now anymore though.

Basically in essence it's a movie about a white man befriending a black man. The friendship does not seem forced or unrealistic but the way it gets portrayed in this movie makes it all feel very real. We see these different ethnics mingle in with each other, as if it's just completely normal. Unfortunately of course back in those days it really wasn't regarded as anything normal. Seeing a black man talking to a white girl and just having fun with her as a friend must have been an hard thing to watch for instance for some proportions of its 1957 audience.

You can really understand why Sidney Poitier has always been and still is being respected so much by the Hollywood society and the black-community in general. Of course it's one of the reasons why he also received an Honorary Award at the Oscar's, in 2002. In his movies he often fights against discrimination and prejudiced issues, with of course 'In the Heat of the Night' as the best example of this. A real role model, that certainly has inspired many Afro-American actors, to this very day. But on top of that, he also was a great actor. Yes, he is still alive but he has pretty much retired completely from movies now it seems, since his last credited role is from 2001.

This movie was Martin Ritt's directorial debut and he also wasn't given too much movie to spend on his movie. The studios were probably also a bit reluctant mainly because of its concept and/or because it was Ritt's first movie. Or perhaps it was simply due to the fact that MGM just wasn't that big anymore and it had left its best days behind them. Ever since the '50's on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer sort of had the reputation of making not too great and cheap movies, while in the early years before that it was really one of the biggest studios with lots of stars and acclaimed directors attached to it, who made many award winning classic movies. Luckily for them their reputation is starting to change again and whenever the MGM-logo appears at a movie people are no longer expecting a lesser-movie anymore.

Anyway, even with its restrained budget and limited resources they managed to make a great movie out of this one. The movie is very simple, with only a few characters and a simplistic plot in it. The movie however still manages to capture you with its story and subjects, without ever starting to become preachy or anything about it. It makes the movie an effective one as well with its subjects.

Really a movie that deserves to be seen.

8/10


Neil Simon has quite a body of work, but it is the Odd Couple that carried him to fame. This film really works. Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthaw have a great chemistry. The supporting cast for this film is stellar as well.

It is about 2 men living together who are from opposite planets. The script bristles with humor from this situation. This had been done in some forms previously. This is the one that brings it all together in a very good package.

Simon has done some other decent work, but this one is really his best work which made the rest of his work possible. It is hard to imagine Simon ever topping this.


It seems a lot of Europeans and Americans see Indian movies for the wrong reason; I see some people are complaining that this movie did not have any dance sequence! A class apart from their Hindi counterparts, Bengali movies tend to be more realistic. Rituparno Ghosh is one of the best young directors in India, being widely known for his choice of subjects for the movies and the strength of his scripts. 'Chokher bali' is a perfect example. A faithful adaptation of the Nobel laureate Tagore's novel dealing with the pursuit of sexual pleasure of a Bengali widow, the director gives a new dimension to the much acclaimed and controversial work.


The Beat was an exciting movie about a couple of young punks trying to survive in 1980's New York. This involves fighting with the other street gang that they directly share a high school class with, trying to stay in school, as well as going to local shows that involve bands that look like the Dead Kennedy's and have the name Skulls for their band name. Rex (played by David Jacobson) Plays an autistic kid who starts to get a long with all of these kinds, and starts to show them that poetry is really beautiful, and if applied to what these kids do in life can really make things work out for the better! Billy Kane (Played by William McNamara) and Kate Kane (played by Kara Glover) are brother and sister. Although they roll with this crowd of thugs, these kids are not the same type of people as this group. They care for Rex and they care for others, and really show an enlightened side of themselves. While his sister sleeps with the head of the Gang, she is also falling in love with Rex, trying to show him that she is not a slut. But in the end, the teachers at the school finally get to him and want to put him in a mental institution, he finally feels it is time to end his life, while Animals of Sound played without him. But they like to think that he is not dead, he is just living his life to the fullest, riding sharks and being happy living in the ocean. This movie, was one of those movies where I was glad that I watched it. While it was extremely entertaining, it also had a big message to it. Something a long the lines that these kids had no direction, no future, no figure heads to look up to, but because a troubled kid came along they all realized that there was way more important things to life then fighting the local black kids, or being destructive to everything. Rex showed them the beauty in angry music. Rex showed them the beauty in Rats, Disease and Murder. Rex showed they the beauty in almost everything, while some of those things have no beauty involved, they still were able to see that when used in poems, these poems speak to people. Rex played an important part in this move, who changed everyones heart from depression, to see that there is hope for them, and thats why he started to show them; The Beat.


This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.


Jeremy Brett is simply the best Holmes ever, narrowly edging out the great Basil Rathbone of course, and this is probably the best adaptation of a Conon-Doyle short story.

A length adaptation includes some new plot strands that fit in well to the surrounding drama and heightens the hatred one feels for Milverton.

Excellent performances all round, especially from Robert Hardy, and both Brett and Hardwick fully rounded and comfortable in their roles makes this a superb piece of drama.