Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if 'Rambo' was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.


I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ('If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!') on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like 'Death Proof'... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue.

Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.

The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the 'art'. I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.


Kate is a jaded young woman who has trouble meeting and dating guys. Throughout the movie, you get to meet several of her loser boyfriends. And throughout the movie, you are subjected to Kate's cynical negative outlook on love and relationships. This negative viewpoint is continued throughout and presented as Ultimate Truth. I had a real problem with this. Why would anyone want to be taught about love, life, and dating from someone who is obviously so messed up? It would work if that was the joke, but it is not. For the jokes in the movie (which are neither funny nor original) to work at all, you have to believe what Kate is saying: that all relationships inevitably end up with bad or no sex, that the highest level a relationship can evolve to is when you are able to fart in front of your partner... You get the idea.

There is no movie in recent memory that comes close to upsetting the stomach as much as Love & Sex. Why did the filmmakers waste their time on such trash? Every joke in Love & Sex is something that I have experienced in another movie or in my own life. There is NOTHING original or creative about the story, the production, or the style. It is cynical, dumb and pointless. Mind numbing!


Oz was a fantastic show, as long as frequent male nudity doesn't turn you off. There was WAY too much frontal male nudity in this show, more than any other show you'd see on a porn channel. Minus that, it was the best show on TV, and a previous commenter said 'better than Prime Suspect'. Prime Suspect is Tom and Jerry vs The Simpsons. No contest. If you have DirecTv they are now re-running it from the start on Channel 101, they're at Episode #3 now. Highly recommended. The creator Tom Fontana also did Homicide, which was an AWESOME show. But why all the male nudity? We all know that stuff happens in prison, but did they really need to show it as often? That was the only thing that turned me off the show. If I want to see naked men, guys getting raped, I'll kill someone myself and witness first hand. Otherwise I like my TV shows free of black penises every Five minutes.


This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:

Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage ()

Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.

I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.

Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.

I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever.


For the record, the 1949 version of 'The Blue Lagoon' is not the original film, as many have stated.

This story was filmed in Great Britain, in 1923, just after the novel was written. As much as I'd love to see the 1949 version, I'd thoroughly enjoy an opportunity at seeing the true original release of this story on film.

Granted, the 1980 film with Christopher Atkins, Brooke Shields, and the two youngsters was filmed with beautiful cinematography. The acting didn't seem all that great when I first viewed this film, but after having viewed this a few times.... it becomes obvious that two children growing up on an island without adult guidance, would indeed have a simplistic way of approaching life.... whether it be in their language, appearance, or daily activities.

Although some have been fortunate enough to view the 1949 'Blue Lagoon', I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone living who can remember the 1923 release of this story to film.


If you want to see a true thriller, rent this!!! It's not from the director or screenwriter of 'Scream', doesn't feature overacting, overpaid 'TV' actors passing off as 'stars', and is not a run of the mill special effects bonanza. Instead you'll get a top-notch, edgy, very strong (in violence) yet thrilling nailbiter.


This is one great movie! I have played all the Nancy Drew games and have read the books, and I never expected the movie to be so exciting and funny! If you never heard of Nancy Drew, read the first book (Secret of the Old Clock) so you can kinda' get used to Nancy, then you can watch the movie, because in the movie, they don't really introduce the characters' names fast. ;) My whole family enjoyed it and the plot was extremely interesting. This is an ultimate come-back from the previous Nancy Drew movies, which the Nancy Drew actor didn't seem to match. This movie is much like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. It's so cool! Nancy Drew lovers, you must watch this!


Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....

Ray The Prick.

Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.

Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, 'You can milk anything with nipples'. And Ray has been milked. Of evil.

How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.

Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.

Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled 'Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick'.

Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.

Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.


envy is not as funny as i thought it would initially be, but after some of the reviews i read i found it to be much funnier than people was giving it props for, now true its not a gag a minute movie like zoolander or dodgeball, but ben stiller and jack black work well with each other and christopher walken is as great as ever, so the story is about jack black's character inventing a spray that makes dog pooh disappear, obviosly ben wants no part of it, but when the product makes jack black rich ben stiller starts to see the envy, its not great by all means and both ben stiller and jack black have funnier and better movies under their belt, but if your a fan of either i recommend this as its still a funny flick and i laughed my ass off quite a few times, as a big fan of ben stiller id have to say this is a lesser stiller but still great fun, give it a watch


This slick and gritty film consistently delivers. It's one of Frankenheimer's best and most underrated films and it's easily the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date (and if you are scratching your head thinking 'but I loved GET SHORTY' you need to be punched in the face). In my opinion, no one captures the 'feel' for Leonard's characters better then John Glover in 52 PICK-UP. The relocation of the story from Detroit (novel) to Hollywood (film) elevates the story's sleaze factor to amazing heights. Be a man, have a few beers and watch this movie. For reference purposes my favorite Leonard books are: Swag, Rum Punch, Cat Chaser, City Primeval, and 52 Pick-Up. My favorite Frankenheimer films include SECONDS and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I also have a real special place in my cold, movie heart for DEAD BANG and BLACK Sunday.


What some Hollywood-movies try and practically never succeed, creating somehow metaphysical connections between persons (without becoming unrealistic), manages this beautiful movie perfectly well (resembling in that way a little to the wonderful 'La Double Vie de Veronique' of the same director and with the same beautiful actress). This is a REAL movie, that changes perspective of life a little bit - intelligent and beautiful story, masterfully directed, excellent main actors, masterful cinematography. I've just seen the movie the 3rd or 4th time, and I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. And if you should be unhappy with the ending of 'White' - 'Red' puts an happy end to the whole trilogy.


Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.

A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like 'college kids in a haunted house,' in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.

Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.

I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.

This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the 'I know hell exists' of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like 'gosh-darnit' comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).

If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.


I too am a House Party Fan...House Party I is my favorite movie of all times. House Party 4 is a disgrace to all of the HP's and to Kid n Play...This was supposed to be part of a series really..there was nothing about kid n play in this movie or any of the other veterans..yea kid n play was probably too old to be throwing a House Party movie b/c its kind of focused on teens..but kid n play could have at least made a cameo appearance ... you can tell how good it was b/c it didn't even make it to the movie theaters. Immature was in House Party 3 so it made sense for them to carry on the legacy...but they should have represented right...they should have left it at House Party 3. I am 27 years old and I have been watching House Party I since I was 11 when it came out in 1990(16 years ago) and I have been a fan ever since. When I first seen House Party 4 I was like what are they really thinking about...There was nothing familiar about this movie that would compare to the previous 3 movies.. I thought it was a black Ferris Bueller days off.


This movie is just plain dumb.

From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.

Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.

Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.

To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10.


This movie was a disappointment. The story is essentially The Shining with a castle (or a very cheap set masquerading as a castle, to be specific) substituting as the hotel and a monster instead of the ghosts. The budget is the same you'd see from a Cinemax softcore porn, as is the photography, sets, lighting, and video it was shot on. The story is a failed attempt at sincerity: there's no easier way to make your audience feel sympathetic for your characters than to show them experiencing emotional trauma. And the trauma in this movie is pretty trite. Want an example? A blind girl listening to a language tape teaching the Italian words for colors begins to cry at what she will never see.

This movie had a few things going for it, however: the monster is actually pretty cool, pretty scary-looking. And there is a pretty decent amount of nudity from Raffaella Offidani, herself a star of Italian 'erotic' films. The gore, however, leaves much to be desired, as does the acting, even from the experienced Jeffrey Combs.

Other than this I've only seen two other Stuart Gordon films: Re-Animator and From Beyond, both of which were outstanding. But I won't let this little footnote in his career keep me from watching many more of his movies.


Paul Verhoeven's De Vierde Man (The Fourth Man) is one of the most compelling thrillers I have ever seen. It really was a pleasant surprise. The story concerns bi-sexual writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe), as he is lured into a relationship with beautiful hairdresser Christine (Renée Soutendijk), but in the twisted mind of Gerard there could be more to the story. Verhoeven and cinematographer Jan De Bont create a beautiful and thick atmosphere full of surreal and sickening sexual imagery, this really pulls you into the story, you don't want to watch, but you can't turn yourself away. This is by far Verhoeven's best film (maybe second only to Robocop). True The Fourth Man isn't for everyone, some of the sex scenes are quite gratuitous (just ignore them, but trust me, if you watch for at least ten minutes you'll be hooked. This is one of those films that you need to know how it ends, a true whodunit it in the Hitchcock tradition, compelling, controversial and thrilling. I even like the spider metaphor.

 8/10


Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm  and respect from the fans  lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their 'early' work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song 'Mistress of the Dark' really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.

And in 1988, after films like 'Fright Night' and 'TerrorVision' incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark', the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch 'Elvira's Haunted Hills' (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).

When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.

It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the 'Naked Gun' films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point ('Killer Party', although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly ('Saturday the 14th'). Although 'Elvira' is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.

I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... 'Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel'! But if you haven't seen 'Atomic Cyborg', then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better.


Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;

I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop!

If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful:

1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts 'New York' and 'New Jersey'; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.

2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.

3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.

4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.

5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.

6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: 'I don't know what we are anymore.' 'I don't want to lose you.' 'He's just like the rest of them!' (And its corollary, 'Daddy, you don't even know him!')

7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.

8. And in other news, we get it.

I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words 'DOOMED LOVE' painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.

In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.


Cute and playful, but lame and cheap. 'Munchies' is another Gremlins clone to come out from the 80s. I'm not much of a fan of the imitations.

First it was the excellent 'Gremlins'.

Then came the very average 'Critters'.

Lets not forget the lousy 'Ghoulies'.

But the complete pits would have to go to 'Hobgoblins'.

Is there more??

Now 'Munchies' for me would have to fall somewhere between 'Ghoulies' and 'Hobgoblins'. Actually I probably found it more entertaining than 'Ghoulies', but I preferred thst one's darker tone.

From the get-go it plays up its goofy nature (which it's better for it), but due to that nature the hammy acting (Alix Elias and Charlie Phillips), can get rather overbearing that you rather just see the munchies running amok. That's where the fun occurs. Mostly light-hearted fluff though, as the story mainly centres on the munchies (who are either hungry, horny and destructive) in a whole bunch of supposed comical encounters (some moments do work) in the small desert town as a couple of people are on the chase. It's silly, but strangely engaging thanks to the zippy pacing. The creatures themselves look rather bland and poorly detailed, as they're basic dolls being chucked about. Where their personalities arrived from is that they can actually speak... and with attitude.

Charlie Stratton and a feisty Nadine Van der Velde (who was in 'Critters') were fair leads. Harvey Korman was acceptable in two roles. Robert Picardo also pops up.

Amusingly low-cut entertainment for the undemanding.


This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film.


ah man this movie was funny as hell, yet strange. i like how they kept the shakespearian language in this movie, it just felt ironic because of how idiotic the movie really was. this movie has got to be one of troma's best movies. highly recommended for some senseless fun!


I was a little worried about actors and acting in Italy then 'Le conseguenze dell'amore' and Toni Servillo came. It was a long time that i didn't see a so charismatic actor on screen. Paolo Sorrentino has written a wonderful story about loneliness and Tony has built one of the most unforgettable characters seen in movies in recent years. The movie is not completely perfect but 'Titta Di Girolamo' will stay with you for a long time after the vision of the movie. Toni please keep on acting in movies, you're for sure the coolest actor around today (and not just in Italy, his performance deserves international acclamation). I rate this movie 9/10.


I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.

I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.


I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?


Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.


This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience.


I just saw this at SIFF, and I absolutely loved it. There were parts where I laughed so hard I couldn't catch my breath. The script and direction by Glenn McQuaid are fantastic. I can't wait to see more from this talented young man. The performances make the movie. Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan are just delightful as the graverobber Willy and his apprentice Arthur. Ron Perlman turns in a fantastic performance (as usual) as a less-than-sympathetic jailhouse priest. Bonus: Angus Scrimm as an unscrupulous doctor! As always, he balances menace and humor perfectly.

This is a style of horror comedy that really hasn't been seen since Vincent Price did 'Comedy of Terrors,' 'The Raven,' and 'Theater of Blood.' The movie is genuinely scary in places, then it'll suddenly flip back into hilarious mode, keeping you totally off balance. Some parts are scary and funny at the same time.

I can only afford to see three movies at SIFF this year, but even if the other two are awful, 'I Sell The Dead' was worth the price of all three. I'm going to be looking for more movies from Larry Fessenden's Glass Eye Pix. He's giving the horror genre a much-needed kick in the butt.


When the Romulans come, they will not be bearing gifts; no, they bring with them war - war and conquest. As any familiar with this episode know, it is a redux of the war film 'The Enemy Below' from the fifties. The obvious difference is that instead of a battleship and a submarine (or an American Destroyer & German U-boat) engaged in lethal war games, it is two starships in outer space. In Trek history, about 100 years before the events here, according to this episode, Earth fought the Romulan Wars. After about 5 years of conflict, a stalemate brought about a treaty and the institution of the Neutral Zone, a boundary between us and the Romulan Empire. Now, on this stardate, the treaty appears to be broken, as our outposts are being attacked and destroyed by some weapon of immense power. Yes, the Romulans are back, testing their new war toy, and Kirk must now earn his pay: he must make decisions that would affect this sector of the galaxy, such as figuring out how to avoid a...oh, I dunno - an interstellar war, maybe?

I think what makes this episode so effective is that it doesn't shy away from the grim aspects of war, as one would expect of a mere TV episode from the sixties - especially an episode from a science fiction show. It's all very tense and gripping, like the best war films, such as when Kirk sits down with his key officers for what amounts to a war council. The writers and the actors aren't kidding around here: this is all preparation for a ghastly conflict, potentially the beginning of another years-long battleground. In the final analysis, Kirk's aim is to keep this battleground to just the two ships - but even then it's an endeavor fraught with peril and probable casualties. In fact, I believe this episode holds the record for ship casualties by the end of it. Right at the start of the episode, we see the devastation such battle can produce, in that supposedly well-protected outpost. Then begin the cat-and-mouse war games between the Enterprise and the Romulan ship - it's as exciting as any conflict we've seen on the big screen. Of course, if you're not into war films, you'd have to look for other things to admire in this episode.

What elevates this episode even further is the revelation of just what and who the Romulans are - it's an electric shock of a sort. Now we have even further inter-crew conflict on the bridge of the Enterprise - war does tend to bring out the worst in some people. Due to still nasty attitudes about race in this future, the tension is ratcheted up even further - Kirk has his hands full in this one. I suppose the one weakness in the story is the convenient relenting of the bigotry issue by the conclusion. On the Romulan side, actor Lenard makes his first appearance in the Trek universe as the Romulan commander; he's terrific in the role, the flip side of Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pike, take your pick, done up to resemble Spock more than a little. Surprisingly, his character is not war hungry as we would expect, another eye-opener for this episode. The actor would next return to this universe as Sarek, Spock's father, so he's nothing if not versatile. It's also telling how the first appearance of such characters as the Romulans is usually their best shot, as it is here. They showed up in 'The Enterprise Incident' next.


To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?

This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.

Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.

'nuff said?


I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster.

Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator.

On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.

Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong.

Very disappointing and a complete waste of time.


Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.


In this excellent Twentieth-Century Fox film-noir, the metropolis is a labyrinth of despair in which scavengers and predators survive by living off one another. Brooding cityscapes lower over puny humanity in bleak expressionist symbolism.

A prostitute has her purse snatched on the subway. It contains a microfilm, and a communist spy ring will go to any lengths to recover it. Two parallel investigations unfold as both spies and cops hunt down the precious information.

Anti-hero pickpocket Skip McCoy is played with scornful assurance by Richard Widmark. He knows the cops to be his moral equals and intellectual inferiors, so he taunts them: 'Go on,' he says to captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye), 'drum up a charge. Throw me in. You've done it before.' In this pitiless world, the cops are just one more gang on the streets. Just as Candy the hooker bribes Lightning Louie to get a lead, so the police are busy paying stool pigeons for information.

It is hard to believe that when Widmark made this film he was already in early middle age. The 39-year-old star, coming to the end of his contract with Fox, plays the upstart Skip McCoy with the irreverent brashness of a teenager. Today it may not be acceptable for the romantic lead to punch his love interest into unconsciousness then revive her by sloshing beer in her face, but by the mores of the period it signified toughness - and Candy, after all, is a fallen woman.

Jean Peters is radiant as Candy. Here, right in the middle of her five-year burst of B-movie fame, she is beautiful and engaging as the whore with the golden heart. She is the story's victim, a martyr to her beauty as much as anything else. She means well, but is constantly being manipulated by cynical men - Joey, Skip and the cops.

The real star of this movie is New York. Haunting urban panoramas and snidering subway stations offer a claustrophobic evocation of the city as a living, malevolent force. Like maggots in a rotting cheese, human figures scurry through the city's byways. Elevators, subway turnstiles, sidewalks - even a dumb waiter act as conduits for the flow of corrupt humanity. People cling to any niche that affords safety: Moe has her grimy rented room, Skip his tenebrous shack on the Hudson River. As the characters move and interact, they are framed by bridge architecture, or lattices of girders, or are divided by hanging winch tackle. The personality of the city is constantly imposing itself. The angles and crossbeams of the wharf timbers are an echo of the gridiron street plan, and the card-index cabinets in the squadroom mimic the Manhattan skyline. When Joey's exit from the subway is barred, it is as if the steel sinews of the city are ensnaring him.

A surprising proportion of this film is shot in extreme close-up. Character drives the plot, as it should, and the close-ups are used to augment character. When Skip interrogates Candy, the close-up captures the sexual energy between them, belying the hostility of Skip's words. Jean Peters' beauty is painted in light, in exquisite soft focus close-ups. The device is also employed to heighten the tension. The opening sequence, the purse snatch, contains no dialogue: the drama relies entirely on close-up for its powerful effect.

Snoopers, and snoopers upon snoopers, populate the film. Moe (Thelma Ritter) makes a living as an informant, and her place in the hierarchy is accepted, even by her victims. When Skip observes, 'she's gotta eat', he is chanting a recurring refrain. Just as 'straight' New Yorkers peddle lamb chops or lumber, the Underworld traffics in the commodity of information.

And yet even the stool pigeons are superior to Joey and his communist friends. Joey's feet on Moe's bed symbolise a transgression of the most basic moral code. Joey is beyond the pale. Moe will not trade with Joey, even to preserve her life: ' ... even in our crummy business, you gotta draw the line somewhere.'

'Pick-Up' was made in the depths of the Cold War. Richard Nixon had just been chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, having made his name with his phoney Alger Hiss expose - bogus communist microfilm and all. The McCarthy show trials were a daily reality. We see the cops in the movie inveigh against 'the traitors who gave Stalin the A-bomb'.

New York can be seen as a giant receptacle in which human offal cheats, squeals and murders. Containers form a leitmotif throughout the film. Moe carries her trade mark box of ties, and candy's purse, container of the microfilm, is the engine of the plot. Skip keeps his only possessions in a submerged crate, symbolising his secretive street-wisdom. The paupers' coffins, moving down the Hudson on a barge, are containers of just one more cargo being shifted around the pitiless metropolis.

The film is a masterpiece of composition. Candy is shown above the skulking Skip on the rickety gangway of the shack, signifying her moral ascendancy. When the gun is placed on the table, the extreme perspective makes it look bigger than Candy - violence is beginning to dwarf compassion. The lovers are eclipsed by the shadow of a stevedore's hook, reminding us that their love is neither pure nor absolute, but contingent upon the whims of the sinister city. Enyard the communist is a shadow on a wall, or a disembodied puff of cigarette smoke. He is like the lone alley cat amongst the garbage - a predatory phantom of the night. Camera shots from under taxi hoods, inside newspaper kiosks and through the bars of hospital beds constantly reinforce in us the awareness that we are all trapped in the metropolis. We are civilisation's mulch.


Well, where to start? I stumbled across this one in 1993 and just hit 'record' on the VCR out of habit, more than anything else. 'Citizen Kane' it sure isn't...but if you've had a bad day and are in the mood for crashing out in front of something not too intellectually stimulating, then I tentatively suggest this might just be your 'thing'.

We have the lot here - great title track, more stereotypes than you could shake a stick at, unconscious comedy, the bitchiest fight scene of all time and more, more, more! David Hemmings plays the diametric opposite of his role in the 60s classic 'Blow Up' - still a photographer, still hormonally stimulated but not 'quite' the same.

John Philip Law is easy to slam as an actor who makes a log appear unwooden but that wouldn;t be fair seeing as how he had about 5 minutes notice before accepting the role.

Wexler as 'Amanda'? Suffice to say it was her one and ONLY film role! The real star of this movie, though, is Ethel Evans who plays a, shall we say secretary (?), with the morals of an alley cat and an ambition to match. The way she manages to reconcile her present life with that of a future with her comedian husband-to-be is actually quite touching in an earthy, gritty, what-is-to-be-will-be way.

I actually love this movie when I'm in the mood for it.......and wouldn't touch it with the proverbial bargepole when I'm not.

Kudos to the cast for keeping a (relatively) straight face when filming.

A 'classic' in the Edward D Wood school of cinematic endeavours!


I Love Ernest Goes to Jail. It's one of my top 3 favorite Ernest movies. The others being Ernest Scared Stupid and Ernest Goes to Camp. In this movie Ernest (Jim Varney) works as a janitor for a bank but he wants to be a bank clerk. Soon he is assigned jury duty but soon winds up in trouble when the evil murderer Felix Nash (Varney also) knocks him out and switches places with him! Soon Ernest is in jail and is forced to act like Nash or else Nash will kill Charlotte Ernest's love interest. When they take Ernest to the electric chair thinking he's Nash he gets so electrocuted he winds up breaking out and goes off and saves Charlotte from the evil Nash! Filled with hilarious scenes and comics Ernest Goes to Jail is a movie that'll make you laugh so hard! It still does to me! Jim Varney was such a fantastic actor! He did a good job playing both good guy and bad guy! Varney was like his Toy Story Co star Tom Hanks. No matter what role they played their roles were memorabilia and that's one of the things that Varney's gonna be remembered forever for! R.I.P. Jim Varney 1949-2000. Thank you for bringing Ernest and other fantastic characters to life! 10 out of 10!


'Bloody Birthday' is an odd and, at times, humorous low-budget horror flick along the lines of 'Mikey' or a less intelligent version of 'The Good Son'.

Set in a small Californian town, three babies are born at the height of an eclipse, where planetary alignment means they are somehow born without emotions. Ten years later, our three little psychopaths take themselves on a killing spree, doing away with parents, siblings, teachers and anyone else who irritates them. Only one teenage girl knows the truth to be able to stop them. There is no explanation for why babies across the world born at the same time aren't equally as twisted but there you go!

For a slasher film, it's very tame in terms of violence and gore, which I suppose highlights the problem of casting child characters as the killers as there is only so much you can expose the young actors to. Instead, it's amusing and a little disturbing seeing three ten-year-olds plotting murders and carrying out their plans using guns, knives and crossbows. The main reason why it doesn't descend into being totally ridiculous is because the child actors are very convincing in their roles with the way they slyly play the little innocents in front of undiscerning adults while showing their dark side to the girl who knows the truth.

'Bloody Birthday' is rather mediocre as a horror flick, with few scares and little blood, but because it has the shock factor of having kids as the killers, it is a bit unique in that way. One to watch if there's nothing else on.


A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he  or, for that matter, Michael Elliott  was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother  shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist  who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort.


This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him.

Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II (and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax.


I enjoyed the Mr. Magoo cartoons I saw while growing up. And I enjoy Leslie Nielson's comic skills. So, I thought, this marriage must produce a funny child.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

This movie was just awful. I don't recall a single funny moment. This is one of the two or three times (in hundreds of films over the years) I've wanted my money back. You will leave this film dejected because you won't ever have that time back to use in a better way. In a comedy, the plot must draw in the viewer and serve as a framework for gags. This plot does neither. It just kinda lies there, gasping like a beached fish.


Although I had previously watched this one some time ago on Italian TV, I found it to be a surprisingly tolerable potboiler this time round, buoyed by an international cast of familiar faces (including a bemused Joseph Cotten as the Baron) and, contrary to many another film of the Euro-Cult sub-genre, an incident-packed plot in place of lethargic pacing.

The creature itself looks a bit dodgy and Cotten is a bit too old to be taken seriously as an eager scientist still dabbling in creating life-forms out of corpses (one would have thought that he would have made himself an army of them by now and not struggling at perfecting his technique still) but Ms. Neri does look good in and out of costume and reliable Herbert Fux probably comes off best as a lecherous grave-robber/blackmailer.


living in Romania, i was almost stunned by the very realistic setting for the scenes and the great care paid to local details by the director. The performance of Anthony Queen is absolutely great, and the rest of the cast does a great job supporting him. The movie does take a little knowledge of the east European context in order to be fully enjoyed, but it remains otherwise a great performance with some memorable lines. the ending is maybe a bit too melodramatic, but that's actually the way people are in this part of the world I believe the screenplay is great, because it presents the horrors of the 2nd WW in a most original manner - no blood, no battlefields. Still, lives are shattered, and the smiles you get every now and then throughout the movie are quickly killed by the war realities touching the characters.


This movie is told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.

The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic 'NEW-COMER' a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.

It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in 'RAWANDA'. This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given time.


Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching? Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching?


I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.

including but not limited to 'allright lets see what these guys can do' I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.

Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks.


I am always so frustrated that the majority of science fiction movies are really intergalactic westerns or war dramas. Even Star Wars which is visually brilliant, has one of its central images, a futuristic 'gang that couldn't shoot straight.' Imagine your coming upon about 600 people with conventional weapons, most of them having an open shot, and they miss.

I have read much science fiction, and wish there were more movies for the thinking person. Forbidden Planet, one of the earliest of the genre, is still one of the very best. The story is based on a long extinct civilization, the Krell, who created machines which could boost the intelligence of any being by quantum leaps. Unfortunately, what they hadn't bargained for, is that the brain is a center for other thoughts than intellectual. The primitive aspect of the brain, the Id, as Freud called it, is allowed to go unchecked. It is released in sleep, a bad dream come to corporeal existence. Walter Pigeon, Dr. Morbius, is the one who has jacked his brain to this level, and with it has built machines and defenses that keep him barely one step ahead of the horrors of the recesses of his own mind. His thoughts are creating horrors that he soon will not be able to defend. The Krell, a much superior species, could not stop it; it destroyed them. The landing party has never been of great interest to me. The rest of the actors are pretty interchangeable. Ann Francis is beautiful and naive, and certainly would have produced quite a reaction in the fifties adolescent male. Her father's ire is exacerbated by her innocence and the wolfy fifties' astronauts (for they are more like construction workers on the make than real astronauts). They are always trying to figure out 'dames.' The cook is a great character, with his obsession for hooch. Robbie the Robot has much more personality than most of the crew, and one wonders if Mr. Spock may not be a soulmate to the literal thinking of this artificial creature. The whole movie is very satisfying because the situation is the star. Morbius can't turn back and so he is destined to destroy himself and everything with him. There are few science fiction films that are worth seeing more than once; this is one that can coast right into the 21st century.


Allow me to just get to the bottom line here: I've got 3 kids, ages 5 to 10. I consider a trip to the theater a success when there are no talking animals. I've seen most of the children's videos in our collection at least 72 times. I can tell you when the film gets reversed in The Wizard of Oz, the over-18 sexual joke in El Dorado and the tragic flaw with the ending of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I could probably storyboard Nemo from memory alone.

What makes me support the one child of mine (it varies) who suggests this title for the family movie of an evening? In a word: Showerman.

Moment of silence...

*sigh*


'Nuovomondo (2006)' (shown in the U.S. as 'The Golden Door') was written and directed by Emanuele Crialese. This film is different--and, I think, better--than most movies about impoverished people who leave Europe and come to the United States.

The film begins with scenes in a poor, rural region of Sicily. We always hear that Sicily is a rocky island, but you won't really understand the implications of that phrase until you see the first half-hour of 'The Golden Door.'

The middle section of the film is devoted to the long voyage to the U.S. Most immigration films show us ten minutes of people in the third-class section becoming seasick, and then show us the Statue of Liberty. Not this movie--we get a sense for life below decks, and it isn't charming. (We never actually see the Statue of Liberty, either.)

Finally, the typical movie will give us another ten minutes of Ellis Island, and then the immigrants are walking through New York's Lower East Side. Not here--the Ellis Island experience occupies about one-third of the footage.

Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as Salvatore Mancuso, who is bringing his two sons and his mother to the new world. Charlotte Gainsbourg is equally good as Lucy Reed, a mysterious Englishwoman who also speaks fluent Italian.

There are some strange touches in the movie, especially the sound track with songs by Nina Simone. There must be some symbolism there, but I couldn't make sense of it.

Another reviewer has already pointed out that this film will do better viewed in a theater rather than on DVD. Still, large screen or small screen, it's worth seeking out.


Based on a true story, this series is a gem within its kind. The slave that becomes queen by capturing the heart of the most powerful man in the village.

In the diamond mining town of Tijuco in Brazil, the diamond commender--appointed by the king of Portugal--is the ultimate authority. Having grown up in the relative security of his house, the young and beautiful Xica da Silva finds her world threatened when he decides to sell her to a whorehouse in town, refusing to recognize that a black slave girl could be his daughter. In a desperate bid to save herself, Xica steals the diamonds collected by the diamond commender for the king, intending to use them to escape. The king's army arrives to collect the diamonds the very next day, however, and when the loot turns up missing, the diamond commender is led away in chains, his family dispossessed and thrown out in the street with only the clothes on their backs. Martin, the diamond commender's son, swears vengeance. Xica and the other slaves, however, are sold at auction, and Xica ends up in the home of the Sergeant Major, an old man who bought her solely to slake his lust. To the town of Tijuco, however, comes the new diamond commender, the elegant and ruthless Joao Fernandes. Immediately struck by Xica's beauty, he manipulates the Sergeant Major into selling her to him. And thus begins a love story, filled with danger, intrigue and passion, between a willful nobleman and a crafty slave girl who rises to one day become queen.

The series is filled with rich details of the era's beliefs, superstitions, politics, fashion, etc. etc. And it really manages to captivate your attention for every minute. At times funny with a sarcastic and dark humor, full of suspense and unexpected twists. 'Xica da Silva' is definitely a must. I wish I could buy the whole series on DVD.


They prove that the cops, when they can't find the REAL perpetrators, always blame the parents and accuse them of sexual abuse of their kids. These movies always depict the press as a bunch of animals and have the parents coming out of court to feed the press' hunger to humiliate the grief-stricken. Hasn't anybody ever heard of a courthouse back door in these movies? Here, you have a psychic who tells them exactly what happened and WHERE the body can be found, but the police are not told and nobody heeds his findings.

The police are portrayed as blockheads who don't know what they are doing and there's always an outside detective, like Ed Asner, who comes in late on the case, believes in the parents and solves the mystery.

Also, after the parents are cleared, they don't spit in the faces of the dumb cops who put them in jail, took their kid away and accused them of killing their own child.

It looked as if I've see this film MANY times before.


The best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.

In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.

The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.

Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though.


on this quagmire of mediocrity? You are SO much better than this.

Simply put, Frostbite is worthless. Bad acting (and I use that term loosely), minimalist 'plot,' sophomoric humor, and lackluster snowboarding. There's not even a sufficient display of feminine pulchritude to spark the prurient interest of socially inept, but red-blooded, males.

Top Gun had spectacular flight sequences to goggle at. Days of Thunder had heart-pounding racing action. Even Point Break had skydiving scenes to its credit. Frostbite has none of these. It's not worth your time, my time, Traci Lords' time, Carmen Nicole's time, nor the time of anyone involved with this destruction of celluloid that would have been perfectly usable on something worthwhile had it not been wasted on this fodder for the recycling center.

The world will be a better place when we forget that Frostbite ever existed.


Although Casper van Dien and Michael Rooker are generally relegated to B movies, even they are above this movie. It fails to convey even the slightest sense of excitement, fear, or dread -- unless you count the dread of sitting through the rest of this garbage. The direction is amateurish with annoying cuts and jerky movement that hides the fact that the killer is no where near the victims when he attacks. And what a killer he is: a cheap skull mask and a black hood. I liked him better when he was fighting He-Man. This is one of the laziest jobs of character design I've ever seen. I mean, it's Skeletor! And he's on a horse! This is supposed to be some scary, supernatural creature? How are we supposed to take this seriously? All we get is scenes of this dude riding around the woods on his horse -- which he can barely stay on -- interspersed with scenes of soldiers shooting randomly into the woods, thinking they can shoot a ghost. Occasionally, Skeletor will shoot someone with an arrow or ride by and stab someone, revealing how corny the effects really are. I generally enjoy Sci Fi channel fare on a basic cheese level, but this film is too inept for any level of enjoyment. Where's Dolph Lundgren when you need him???


Normally the best way to annoy me in a film is to include some reference to Orson Welles. But here is a sci-fi comedy quoting the War of the Worlds broadcast.... and it is gold! The very concept of a small bunch of diminutive,aggressive and stupid aliens being mistaken as kids in Halloween dress is magnificent. Don't be fooled by the notion that because it seems like a kids' movie it is unsophisticated - it isn't, there's a lot of hidden treasure... A gem!


I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!


Beautiful images, propaganda and history as toy. The ingredients of this film, good, interesting but with many shadows. Politicall shadows. Jefferson is more than the hero of a mythical America. He is silhouette of a vision about life and society, an extraordinary thinker, teacher of large part of North America. In film is only Superman. The delicate contour of ideas are crushed. The subtle birth of essential truth is forgotten. And Jefferson is basic instrument for create a good image of American realities. The end,triumphal and fake, romance and heroic, is gun suicide of a story who may be tall with more wisdom. And the war against 'Avatar' is another gray stain. For one who heard nothing about Jefferson, movie is a good beginning. For the others - disillusion. It is like the precious silk of a tailor. But the tailor is fascinating about silk and the clothes are only ordinary cloth. So, a sad experience. Slices of beauty and boring lakes, patriotic lesson and the crush of expectation. A film who must impressive. And the ash of a story who could be magnificent.


Star Pickford and director Tourneur -- along with his two favorite cameramen and assistant Clarence Brown doing the editing -- bring great beauty and intelligence to this story of poor, isolated Scottish Islanders -- the same territory that Michael Powell would stake twenty years later for his first great success. Visions of wind and wave, sunbacked silhouettes of lovers do not merely complement the story, they are the story of struggle against hardship.

The actors bring the dignity of proud people to their roles and Pickford is brilliant as her character struggles with her duties as head of the clan, wavering between comedy and thoughtfulness, here with her father's bullwhip lashing wayward islanders to church, there seated with her guest's walking stick in her hand like a scepter, discussing her lover, played by Matt Moore.

See if you can pick out future star Leatrice Joy in the ensemble. I tried, but failed.


I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY.


How I Spend My Vacation puts closure to the television series that aired from 1990 to 1992. I've always enjoyed the series for what it is. I've never compared the series to the Looney Tunes of the old days. The video release was split up in four or five episodes (I can't remember as I'm writing this) for television and it's included in the episode list of the series. What's good about this series is that All the main characters of the show have a major role in the story. We see what they all do during their summer vacation in different parts of the world. Elmyra is with his parents in a Safari, Plucky and Hampton crossing the country with Hampton's parents, Fifi is in some beach, etc. The climax is very good and at the end all Tiny Toon characters reunite for the start of a new year in the 'Looniversity', thus practically ending the good run of this tv show.


You can't really call Roy Andersson prolific, (6 films in 37 years). Nor can you accuse him of being conventional; he doesn't do 'straight-forward', at least when it comes to narrative. 'You, the Living', his first film in seven years, is like a surreal documentary in which a large number of characters are observed doing nothing very much and if that sounds off-putting, let me assure you it isn't. This is a funny, accessible and surprisingly warm-hearted movie, a slice-of-life far removed from that which we normally see on the screen.

Of course, 'slice-of-life' is hardly the proper moniker to apply to this movie since most people's lives are unlikely to be anything like this. The incidents on the screen run the gamut from the almost terrifyingly ordinary to the downright wacky and while characters may flit by, sometimes never to be seen again, others to reappear as if anxious for approval, Andersson bestows on them all a kind of benign affection. That, and some rollicking music, ensure the time we spend with them is time well-spent.


It's a shame that this piece of work wasn't acknowledged as a piece of work. It has everything a historical film must have: a serious historical research, outstanding performances of every actor involved and a discrete but great direction.

When I saw the movie I knew it should be a prototype for every biographical movie.


I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.


....is the boob in the pie. Every thing else in it is an abortion, a malformed failure of a film. At least you can SEE and HEAR what goes on in an Ed Wood movie (usually). High schools drama clubs do better than this on a routine basis. Once you've you've seen the breast pie bit, you can turn it off and go watch 'Hannibal'.


Yeah it may not be for adults, and some adults may find it stupid, but if you don't think about it it's really not that bad.

The story has Alvin and his gang, going across the world, in search of jewels for a bad person, and the misadventures that they come in contact with.

So the animation is good, and the story is cute, and the songs are forgettable but it's a good movie.

I give it a 6 out of 10 or *** out of 4 stars.


This is supposedly a story in which a GROWN MAN tells a story about his youth. Yet, you see things like personal computers, e-mails, faxes, etc, which are items used in the late 20th Century and early 21st.

So when is this guy supposed to be telling this story - in 2020. Gee, I wonder how advanced we are then. How about telling us that.

Also, there are several legal issues which also make no sense. In the courtroom scene, the story falls into the usual pratfalls of surprise evidence, which is inadmissible in any real court of law in this country. Also, Grandma would have to be missing at least seven years in most states before to be declared officially dead.

Congratulations Elmo Shropshire. You are now officially a SELLOUT.


20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....

Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: 'Howdy!' when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.


'Cavemen' exceeded my expectations, and not in a good way. It was even worse than I thought it would be. Basically, here's the show: The Cavemen are an alternate race, they face prejudice, etc. Quite possibly the stupidest idea ever created; almost being worthy of jail time for the writers. One show featured the cavemen going into a club, trying to pick up girls, and then nothing else happened. It was reminiscent of listening to a 22 minute Andy Rooney dialog, followed by death by steak knives via midget cannibals. For those who have not seen this show, here's an example of the dialog: 'You're sure you're okay with going out with a caveman.' 'Yeah, that's fine. I've had like 10 - thousand!' Hilarious... Possibly the best writing I've ever witnessed.

22 minutes of cavemen with horrible makeup, tackling tough social issues... Sounds like an entertaining night. I also love how bad the recent ideas are that they're resorted to making a sitcom out of car insurance commercials. I wonder if they'll do the Gecko next, so that I can have a new title for the worst show I've ever seen. I would even say that this is worse than 'Viva Laughlin.' At least 'Viva Laughlin' was ripped off from something that was somewhat inspired.

Shows like this make me hope that there's a comet up there somewhere aimed for Earth.

(Unratable honestly...)


Okay, granted, I am a fan of low-budget horror, which along with it, does come the occasional piece of garbage that even the most diehard fan of campy flicks can not bare to stand witness to...TRANCERS 6, directed by DEMONICUS's Jay Woelfel.

First of all, the TRANCERS series, started back in the mid-80s by Charlie Band and his Empire Pictures, is basically the franchise that it is because of Tim Thomerson and his excellent portrayal of Trancer hunter Jack Deth. Well, low and behold, due to the sinking budgets of Full Moon features (which, despite what people have said, have actually brought along very high quality features, such as HELL ASYLUM and DEAD & ROTTING), Thomerson did not return for the sixth installment.

Full Moon writer Courtney Joyner returns once again and delivers another below-average screenplay, which features Jack Deth (played by Thomerson...in flashbacks, which are extremely poorly inserted...he has a different hair style like every time he is shown, and some `shemp' laying on a table) going down the line into his daughter's body. Well, from here on out, you have 'Jo Deth' acting like Jack...but its a shame that she really doesn't give off the same screen presence as Jack Deth did.

The film, shot on 16mm, is, simply put, an embarrassment to the TRANCERS name...no offense to anyone at Young Wolf Productions. I mean, I respect you guys for actually wanting to jump forth and do a TRANCERS film without Tim, but with a little more time (despite it being filmed since December of 2001), it could have been better.

However, check out Full Moon's DVD of it, which is a double feature with the original TRANCERS, and features trailers for the last 10 plus Full Moon features.

Overall, I would probably have liked the feature more if it wouldn't have the TRANCERS name, but like anything, you can judge it by someone's opinion and you must check it out for yourself!


Based on Neil Simons play of the same The Odd Couple tells the story of best friends Felix Unger(Jack Lemmon)and Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau)who end up sharing Oscars massive bachelor pad after Felix tries to kill himself.

He had a big row with his wife over his obsessive compulsive cleaning sprees and weird phobias and sends her a suicide telegram.She calls Oscar and lets him know what happened.Felix turns up at Oscar's during his weekly poker game with their friends Vinnie(John Fielder)Murray the policeman(Herbert Edelman)Roy(David Sheiner)and Speed(Larry Haines).After some side splitting hysterics it's agreed Felix will stay with Oscar.

The rest of the film centres on how these two are such completely different characters.As well as looking at if Oscar can stand Felix's truly weird and unique habits and cleanliness and if Felix can stand Oscar being such a slob and his laid back attitude to everything. Really a film about two complete opposites living together and the joys,highs,lows and necessity of the gift that is friendship.With great acting an intelligent and very funny script and the great Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as the British Pigeon sisters who Oscar invites over for a double date.

This one is guaranteed to make you laugh every line is priceless and Jack and Walter are fantastic with a great chemistry.Also made into a successful and equally funny TV series with Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix.


I had always heard about this great mini-series, but viewed it for the first time this week, July of 2007. I can see why it started the careers of so many young actors. The story is intriguing and gives wonderful insights into the period before and during the Civil War. I cared about the characters and how their lives evolved during this period. Some of them were stereotypes, but they still helped me see how people thought during the 1800's. Many historical facts were thrown into the story and it was interesting to see history books come to life. The costumes and sets were gorgeous! I thoroughly enjoyed watching both parts I and II. Part III is a disappointment.


(Very light spoilers, maybe.)

Normally a fan of Diane Keaton, I tried to watch this tonight. I had to switch it off before the second hour because I found myself with absolutely no sympathy for daughter or mother. Both came across as self-absorbed with little regard for others, with the daughter also adding in rude, disrespectful and reckless to the mix. When the daughter died, the only thing I thought was, 'At least we won't have to watch her anymore.' Keaton did a good job of moving into her stunned state and into the grieving, but it was too far gone for me by then. I simply wasn't enjoying it, so I stopped watching. If you want me to care for the protagonist, you need to get me caring about the characters much sooner--if it's nearly an hour in and I don't care, it's too late.

The supporting cast was sincere and well played--I felt for *them!*--and the gay best friend was wonderful, but even combined, that wasn't enough to carry the film for me.


This movie will not be considered for an academy award, but if you enjoy a movie that doesn't take itself seriously and just wants the viewer to enjoy for ninety mins it is not a disappointment. You'll enjoy a send up of Darth Vader for the villain (the breather), a female Batman for the heroine (but much cuter with much less costume), and a running joke that involves cigarettes and the police captain that's very funny. Not by any means a great cinematic achievement. But if you enjoy campy fun it was worth a viewing. God help me, I liked it.


I enjoyed this programme immensely. It is exceptionally well written, with finely judged performances and clever visuals.

It is also very frank and honest, refreshing compared to the sanitised representation of drug use in films and television.

Unmissable - one of the finest television shows of recent years, and triumph on all scales for Channel 4.

9/10


Hi To read the entire plot around 'OZ' just look at IMDb here to find it.

**WARNING SPOILERS INSIDE THIS REVIEW !** Oz is the a series that has not only moved me but also shows a small bit. Of the American prison system, but i have to say (judging on discovery channels program over jail) it is not really realistic.

Although i got to say, there not shy, rapes,shanking (stabbing) happens allot. Still it is television, so for you ppl out there that think this is realistic wrong.

There is a good degree of violence in it, and some here and there overdone scenes (plot over plot over plot) that can get pretty boring. But remember the series is almost ancient by now. So times do change as well i believe i should judge this in the time line as it came out.

As the season prolonged up to season 5 it was pretty good!. Until one of the cons wins a lottery ticket of 2 million dollars, because he talked to god it struck me as 'ok this is getting to the point i do not want to see this series no more' Still i proceeded! And now i just seen the episode 3 of season 6. This is were cereal gets his brain zapped and then his 'mom' hold him after, while he is drooling. Then you see O Reilly cry as well seeing his bro like that (RL BROTHERS As well) Now thats by far the best scene out of the entire 'OZ' series, that was real to me! Still do not read this wrong that I'm trying to crash and burn it. It is a really good series! And even now 2010 well worth a watch ! I give it a 7 because of the storyline that weakens with the season. But still a golden glove.


'Lifeforce' is a truly bizarre adaptation of the novel 'The Space Vampires' by Colin Wilson, scripted by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby. A joint American-British space exploration team makes a mind-boggling discovery: an alien spacecraft resting inside Halleys' Comet, containing three entities that look like people, one of them a female beauty (the oh-so-alluring Mathilda May).

They take these discoveries back on board their own spacecraft. Big mistake.

It turns out that these creatures drain the life out of human beings, and as American colonel Carlsen (an intense, edgy, and committed Steve Railsback) and British S.A.S. colonel Caine (a solid Peter Firth) watch in horror, an infestation of vampirism overtakes London, with the fate of Earth in the balance.

This picture certainly is not lacking in imagination. It moves a little slowly at times but offers so many strange and fanciful ideas and eye-popping visuals that it's hard not to be amused. The first of director Tobe Hoopers' three-picture deal with Cannon Films (he followed it up with 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre II' and the 'Invaders from Mars' remake), he makes it something truly unique. Incorporating elements of sci-fi, vampire films, zombie films, and end-of-the-world sagas, it's like nothing that I've seen before.

Railsback and Firth are ably supported by such strong Brit actors as Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart, Michael Gothard, Aubrey Morris, and John Hallam. Mathilda May is very memorable as the bewitching, enigmatic villainess; it certainly doesn't hurt that she performs a great deal of her scenes in the nude. Also worth noting is a stirring music score from none other than 'Pink Panther' composer Henry Mancini.

Ridiculous it may be, but I found it to be fun as well. It's flamboyant and spirited entertainment.

8/10


The most vivid portrait of small-town oddity I've seen in a long time -and I'm not just talking about Australian films. This piece of work seems to have been made 'under the radar' and really, it's an entirely fascinating piece of work, that has a worldliness mostly unseen in recent Aust. film making.

At times it is rather slow and strange - it seems to meander hither and thither not really sure if it's a thriller or a 'head-movie'. But the stunning aspect of the film by Alex Frayne is its iron fisted, ruthless direction. It never wavers, it is highly controlled, precise and absolutely self-assured. The cinematography is some of the most artful, beautiful and lyrical I've seen. The sound is all psychological, the music builds the tension.

By the third act, the story is ramped up and episodes collide and converge - don't attempt to piece together the puzzle of the last 20 minutes, it's a bit of an impost - but by that time the film has you a bit of a trance, a sort of hypnosis, and you've been sold a riddle - that has no real answer.


I still liked it though. Warren Beatty is only fair as the comic book hero. What saves this movie is the set, the incredible cast and it offshoots a mediocre script. I really expected something more substantial in the terms of action, or plot but I got very little. The main reason to watch this movie is to watch some of the biggest stars in Hollywood at the time in such an unusual film.

The one person who did a terrible job and did not even belong in this film was Madonna. She did not belong in this movie and her acting job was pretty bad. The movie at some points just stood still. You expected something more and you got nothing. Al Pacino plays a really bad dude and he does pretty good. He and Beatty do make an excellent good guy and bad guy.

It is also interesting to see Dustin Hoffman, and Warren Beatty in a film other than Isthar. I did not see Ishtar but I heard bad things. The thing about this movie is it is good, but it could have been so much better. I liked it as a child because I thought it looked cool, and visually the movie is amazing, the sets are incredible, the writing is only fair, and with such a cast in the movie I would expect a little better anyway.

SPOILER

I especially thought the finale was not big enough. It was interesting but for such a grand scale film I just thought it could have ended with a little more of a bang. The reason to watch this movie is the atmosphere. The movie only uses the 7 comic book colors making it all that more excellent visually anyway.

The costumes and makeup were flawless as well. The facial makeup for the villains was great. Beatty is just not up to such a bigger than life character. Still, this is a good movie that could have been much much more. It is to me better than Batman, the other comic book adaptation that came out close to the same time. Of course that movie was much bigger in terms of gross.


In yet another miserable attempt to make a quick Hollywood cash-in of one of televisions greatest masterpieces, Peter Segal has created a monster. Taken out of context, if one did not know Brooks' work before viewing, the movie would be a lame big budget film that isn't sure if it wants to be fat joke and stupid comedy, or just an ordinary action film with nothing to move on. However, as a young generation Y'er who just recently spent two months obsessing over the five seasons of Get Smart, the 60's TV show, this movie pained me from the moment I entered and saw Steve Carell dumbing down the part. The backstories, agent 99 getting plastic surgery and 86 as an analyst who was formerly morbidly obese, shames the complexity of the original duo and paints a flat boring reevaluation of them. It seems the screenwriters, unable to be truthfully funny in both dialogue and situation, fell back on lame set-ups for Don Adams famous lines, flashbacks to fat camp, references to Carell's part in the office in the interview style camera angles they have, and a female chauvinism that falls flat on its face.

For those who have seen the original, the writers of this movie thought they'd include some memories. They mention Herbie, Fang (now a worthless tiny furry dog that Carell covets), the shoe phone, the cone of silence, and his classic red car and the doors and phone that intro'd the show. The classic music is back, but now everything is updated, generally for the worse. Cone of silence is now some weird blue telekinetic force field, control headquarters are right under a museum that preserves Control's past. The movie lacks any creative random tech, and replaces it with crossbows in swiss army knives. Lots of the 'humor' in the movie is Carrel hurting himself, or another character being hurt, whether it be carrel spending two minutes shooting himself accidentally with the crossbow, or getting punched by security guards, or throwing up in airplanes. In the original, Smart would insult a big foe, attack him with no success, and try to buddy up with him before getting pulverized. In this one, he attacks without success and gets pummeled. It seems the screenwriters didn't understand the humor was established with the dialogue and not the pointless violence. It's like they took the names from the show, and cut out all that made it good in the first place.

The poster hides Carell's face beyond that of Hathaway's. The movie likewise, shies away from anything that could make it good. They intertwine the classic music with the over-dramatic action and romantic music in big-budget films. Whereas the original fed off a campy feel, this one replaces quality with massive doses of cgi explosions and pow sound effects. I was really looking forward to this, as I finished the original series just two months ago and it ranked in my top five shows of all time. However, this was a massive disappointment. The credits say they collaborated with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, but in all the things I've read on the internet, they were largely left out of the writing process. In conclusion, if you want to waste your money on a cash-in with little value and no respect to its namesake, go for it. But be prepared that the ride is not how you remembered it.

PS: I almost forgot the George Bush humor. They mention 'Nuculor', falling asleep at fine art, President's working for their vice pres, and appreciating tackles over solving real problems. If you're into hearing the same jokes you heard 3-4 years ago in big budget movie form, chuck your money here.


Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!!


'Tokyo Eyes' tells of a 17 year old Japanese girl who falls in like with a man being hunted by her big bro who is a cop. This lame flick is about 50% filler and 50% talk, talk, and more talk. You'll get to see the less than stellar cast of three as they talk on the bus, talk and play video games, talk and get a haircut, talk and walk and walk and talk, talk on cell phones, hang out and talk, etc. as you read subtitles waiting for something to happen. The thin wisp of a story is not sufficient to support a film with low end production value, a meager cast, and no action, no romance, no sex or nudity, no heavy drama...just incessant yadayadayada'ing. (C-)


The Perfect Son is a story about two 30-something brothers, one who is seemingly 'perfect' and the other who is basically a screw-up, frequently landing himself in drug rehab centers. After the death of their father, the two are brought together after a long absence and the usual sibling rivalry resurfaces. It isn't until the 'perfect' brother makes the startling revelation that he has AIDS that the irresponsible younger brother finally makes a move to get his life in order, and take some responsibility.

The movie does a nice job of chronicling the younger brother's 'comeback', though it may seem a bit far-fetched at times (beating drug addiction is never so easy). What makes the film more tender is the treatment of AIDS, a topic that has become somewhat passe in cinema over the last 5-10 years. And also the development of an almost sweet relationship between the two formerly feuding brothers is very believable and well-done. The two main actors were both very competent, if not terribly charismatic.

A solid first feature effort from director and writer Leonard Farlinger whose own brother died of AIDS. The ending is nicely done as well.


This time we get a psycho toy maker named 'Joe Petto' (get it?) who makes living, evil toys that kill people. He goes after the family who has the bad luck of just simply living in the same house where he and his mutant robot son 'Pino' (again, get it?) used to live.

Easily the worst (and hopefully [presumably] the last) in this semi - series, this one and the previous one look like soft core porn movies, but without the sex and nudity. It's kind of like a low rent hybrid of 'Halloween III', 'Puppet Master', 'Dolls' and bad home movies. Supposedly in 2000 they started to do a sixth chapter in the series, but it was abandoned and never completed. We can all only hope that it stays that way...

1/2 a star out of ****