Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.

John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy.

Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go.

The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.

Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.

Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.

The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones.

7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad.


Yes, you guessed it. Another movie where identical twins switch places. I think now that the Olsen twins are getting older they should try and make the plot less predictable and less like re-runs of 'Full House'. If you plan on seeing this film, don't. Watch 'The Parent Trap' instead. It's more entertaining.


Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.

O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.

The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!

This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.


Retitled from its original Japanese name of LAPUTA (for being an offensive phrase, something which director Hayao Miyazaki was oblivious to at the time), CASTLE IN THE SKY is the master animator's third film, and it's one of his most beloved of all time. Initially a box office disappointment in its 1986 release, it has since been embraced by critics and audiences around the world. Inspired by Jonathan Swift's 'Gulliver's Travels', CASTLE IN THE SKY is a steampunk-themed action adventure tale about two young orphans -- young miner Pazu, and mysterious girl Sheeta (who wears a magic crystal around her neck) -- who team up to find the long-lost island of Laputa, which is rumored to have great riches and gems. They are aided by a band of bumbling yet sympathetic air pirates led by the feisty Dola (who at first chase them, yet turn out to be true allies) and pursued by the government headed by its villainous topmost-secret agent, Muska, who wants the power of Laputa for his own benefit.

For anyone looking for an exciting way to spend two hours, this film is an excellent choice, featuring just the right amount of humor, exploration, wonder, and mystery to keep one interested. The artwork, although not as spectacular as in some of Miyazaki's later movies, is fantastic and gorgeous enough to watch with imaginative characters and locations, incredibly exciting action scenes, and breathtaking flight sequences that will make one feel giddy. And while the characters that populate this tale are less complex than Miyazaki's other works, each has a memorable, endearing personality that stays with the viewer long after the film is over. Dola, in particular, makes for a terrific comic character, shouting orders to her dimwitted sons one moment and being protective of Sheeta the next. Muska is one of the few Miyazaki creations to ever come across as an irredeemable villain, but like Dola, he commands every scene he's in with a sinister charisma that is both alluring and chilly.

Anime fans have often compared this movie to Gainax's sci-fi adventure series NADIA: THE SECRET OF BLUE WATER. After all, both works share similar story and character elements... not to mention that they were both created by Miyazaki himself. Where both differ is in their execution. NADIA, although charming for the most part, suffered from taking a wrong turn at its midway point, devolving into cartoonish nonsense which all but distracted from the main plot, even though it did have a strong ending. CASTLE IN THE SKY, on the other hand, remains consistently entertaining and focused for its two hour running time, and is all the better for it. While the film's epic tone is sometimes broken up by some 'cartoonish' moments, like a brawl between Pazu's boss and one of Dola's sons, it's never to the point that it detracts from the film.

About eleven years ago, Disney released an English version featuring a cast of big-names such as James van der Beek, Anna Paquin, Cloris Leachman, Mark Hamill, Mandy Patinkin as well as some cameo appearances by veterans such as Tress MacNeille and Jim Cummings. It also features an ambitious reworking of Joe Hisaishi's gorgeous musical score for a performance by the Seattle Music Orchestra (interestingly, the man behind this rescore is none other than the composer himself). As much as purists have cried blasphemy over this version for its occasional extra dialogue and the aforementioned rescore, Miyazaki had no such problems; in fact, he is said to have applauded the reworking, and for good reason, because the newly rerecorded music is truly the star of the new dub. While there are some instances where filling in some critially silent scenes from the original Japanese is a bit jarring (notably the journey through a dragon-infested storm cloud), the overall reworking is fantastic and in many ways improves on the original, particularly in scenes such as when a robot attacks a fortress and the climactic moments toward the end. Here, Hisaishi displays his musical versatility and genius for matching music to visuals.

As far as the performances in the dub go, the leads are probably at the short end of the stick; James Van Der Beek's Pazu sounds significantly more mature than his character, while Anna Paquin's Sheeta speaks with an odd accent that fluctuates at times (a problem which actually works in favor of the character). That said, both do good jobs overall and provide a fairly believable chemistry throughout. It's the lively supporting cast, however, that really make this dub so much fun, particularly Cloris Leachman's Dola and Mark Hamill's Muska. Both are perfectly cast and steal every scene they're in; as with the rescore, these two really warrant a listen to the Disney dub. The script adaptation borders on the loose side at times--there's quite a bit of extra lines and/or commentary (some of which are pricelessly funny and others somewhat overdone)--but aside from at least one debatable alteration (Sheeta's speech in the climactic showdown 'the world cannot live without love' as opposed to the original 'you can't survive apart from Mother Earth'), the overall characters, story, and spirit remain fairly faithful to the original. On the whole, there is little point comparing the Disney version to the original language track; each puts their own stamp on this legendary masterpiece, and I like them both. (They're also better than Streamline/JAL's more literal but frightfully robotic, lifeless, abysmally acted and poorly written older dub from the late 1980's; don't believe anybody who says this version is 'superior' to Disneys--trust me, the opposite is true.)

Either way, though, you can't go wrong with CASTLE IN THE SKY. It's one of Miyazaki's all-time greatest, and I highly recommend it.


***SLIGHT SPOILERS***

A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.

This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.

However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.

At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, 'Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him...'

The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, 'You have been cool about this,' as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.

The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.

Why not? We see the 'new' baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.

Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.


This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!


The reviewer who called this movie a bust has clearly missed the point. It's obvious he hasn't been young or innocent in a very long time, or he might have understood that the tragedy of it was that the well-meaning young characters actually thought they COULD make a difference by putting up posters and holding a rave for peace. If only it was that easy. But the cynics sit and sneer at people who earnestly try their best to make things better, as the situation gets worse and worse every single day. Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

The central theme is that revenge begets more revenge, which begets even more, in an ever-expanding bloodbath. Both sides will tell you tales of atrocities committed by the other side, which they think justify their committing even MORE in retaliation. Where does it end? And apparently he missed the significance of 'the bubble' referred to in the name, which was that people living in Tel Aviv are strangely cut off from the ugly realities of what is going on all around them, which is partly why they seemed so naive. (He also seemed to think that Ashraf could slip through the checkpoints without a problem, which tells me he wasn't paying attention when Ashraf related the delays and problems he had encountered.)

I found it very brave of the director, the screenplay writer, and both star-crossed lovers, to update the Romeo & Juliet story to a modern troubled land, and to make both lovers male. Let's be honest here: Very few people would have a problem if one of them had been a female (young love wins all hearts) -- but when people's uneasiness with their sexuality is added to the fact that, incredibly, these same people would rather have them HATE each other, then the conclusion is inevitable.


Eros and Thanatos, Love and Death command the dialectics of Life. By the end of 19th century in a remote Japanese village a young man and a married woman, older than he, fall in love with each other and decide to kill her husband to be free to enjoy their love. But they never enjoy that freedom since Remorse begins to haunt them beginning as usual at the time by the weakest member of the couple, the woman of course. Henceforth in an atmosphere where dream (nightmare) mixes up with reality the ghost of the murdered husband appears first to the woman but then also to the man. It also haunts the dreams of the other villagers creating a climate of suspicion and gossip around the couple which is aggravated by the arrival of a police officer that comes to investigate the disappearance of the murdered husband. But which makes this movie more interesting besides this almost common story of adultery is the evolution of the couple's feelings in a Shakespearean deep psychological and dramatic development of remorse, anguish and fear which turns their love relationship into a nightmare until their final doom. The expressionism so dear to Japanese theatre or movie acting is also present in the players' performances but not in an exaggerated form. Just only in the necessary measure to show more effectively the most deep feelings of the depicted characters. This is indeed a solid good movie.


When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.

As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. 'The Professor' shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the 'what if' motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.

7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better.


This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow  Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.


This movie is of interest to the fans of the famous rock group 'The Band' in that singer/ keyboardist Richard Manuel appears in several scenes. It looks to me like the movie might have been shot some years before 75, judging by Richard's looks. Interestingly, Jones would later act with The Band's Levon in a considerably better film 'Coal Miner's Daughter.' Anyway, you really need a special reason to outlast this tough to watch Art film. Alas, the famously sensitive Manuel would commit suicide. I've never heard how he ended up in a movie. Four of the five members of the Band would appear in another bad film 'Man Outside.'


I shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself.


It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one.


This is another one of Hitchcock's highest rated movies and rightfully so. This is a tale of two men who meet on a train and playfully exchange murder fantasies. One of them (Robert Walker) takes it seriously and this leads Guy Haines (Farley Granger) to trouble with the law. Another fast moving Hitchcock movie with lots of great scenes (the carousel scene and the tennis match are worthy of mentioning). Not a movie to be missed- it is a shame that no one will re-release this on DVD with loads of extras- just a cheap Warner Brothers DVD is all thats out there now.


I bought this movie last weekend at my local Movie Gallery. It was buy 2 get 2 free and I needed one more so I chose this one. Horrible mistake. The box reads like it would be a really good movie. Well, it starts out like it is going to be this great movie. For about 5 minutes, that is. The movie is about a young woman, Laila, who gets killed trying to save her beau, Jack, from a bull. Laila's dad, Cordobes, is a rancher that the townspeople are afraid of. He assumes that Jack killed Laila because she was supposedly afraid of this bull, and goes on this hunt to find him. That was the first 5 minutes that is good. What follows after that is only gonna get 100 times worse. Whoever wrote the script, in my opinion, had to of been on some kind acid trip or something because nothing else made any sense what so ever. Jack is on the run and finds this traveling radio DJ named Mary who gives him a ride. I think Mary is supposed to be a virgin Mary type character. You know, Jesus' mother. But, who knows, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. As they're running... we get to see bad guys, magical visions, ghostly encounters, flashbacks, etc... And all these things are done in such a way that your brain hurts from trying to figure out what's going on. Needless to say, I took the movie back and exchanged it for something else. It's horrible I tell ya, horrible. And, there is absolutely no bull-fighting in this movie. Unless you count the first minute of the movie. Hope I helped some other people keep from wasting their time on this movie.


This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!

While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).

Also, the tie-in with the photography/'You could be a model' comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.


It would be a shame if Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval ever see this movie as they will probably be associated with it in years to come. 'Oh yeah', the public will say, ''Comanche Moon', that's the mini series about the Texas Rangers and the Comanche Indians that starred Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval. It was a real stinker and probably the worst movie they were ever in. I think it was a comedy but a not very funny comedy. I really don't understand why they agreed to be in it'. That would be such an injustice as the original 'Lonesome Dove' was a true western classic and this turkey is a real bomb and Jones and Duval will be remembered for it.


I found the DVD version of this movie at a rummage sale. The basic premise is an affair between a teacher/coach a student. The acting is weak and the plot razor thin.

This movie had all the depth and plot development of an adult film.


Yeah, it's a chick flick and it moves kinda slow, but it's actually pretty good - and I consider myself a manly man. You gotta love Judy Davis, no matter what she's in, and the girl who plays her daughter gives a natural, convincing performance.

The scenery of the small, coastal summer spot is beautiful and plays well with the major theme of the movie. The unknown (at least unknown to me) actors and actresses lend a realism to the movie that draws you in and keeps your attention. Overall, I give it an 8/10. Go see it.


As far as Christian film goes,it's typical.Lacking of a mega-budget they try their best.Some times falling short,sometimes hitting the mark.This one almost hit, great acting can only carry a movie so far.A combining of H.P. Lovecraft,and Frank Peretti was a good idea.All's it needed was better back story, and better character development to make it great movie.The visuals are not that bad,also smart holding off the demons till the last few minutes helped keep the suspense at a good pace.Could of used a better ending though.Not a bad premise having terrorists experiments go wrong.Much better than typical Hollywood treatment about the demonic realm.Maybe someone will finally do 'This present darkness' as a movie.


Diagnosis Murder has been shown on most Weekday afternoons on BBC1 since I used to watch it while ill from School a good 10 years ago - I know I shouldn't really enjoy it, in the same way I shouldn't enjoy 'Murder she Wrote' but I'm totally addicted to both and even have the DVD box-sets....OK I know that's sad!

Dick Van Dyke carries the show as he stars as Dr.Mark Sloan a Doctor at Community General Hospital in L.A who is also a Police consultant for the L.A.P.D. - his son Steve (Barry van Dyke - Dick's real life son) is a Police Officer, who needs his father's help on very many Suspicious deaths.

Along for the ride is Dr.Amanda Bentley (Victoria Bentley) the resident Pathologist at Community General and for the first couple of seasons you had Scott Baio playing Dr.Jack Stewart, who upped and left the series in 1995 hoping to go on to bigger and better things...he should have stayed where he was, he hasn't done anything of note since....and his only theatrical appearance for many years was in Baby Geniuses 2:Superbabies....Oh Dear!!!

anyhow Dr.Jack Stewart was replaced by the younger Dr.Jesse Travis played by Charlie Schlatter who stepped into Baio's shoes pretty comfortably.

The series is highly implausible but what Whodunit series isn't? (Murder she wrote - everywhere Jessica goes, someone ends up dead, or The underrated Father Dowling Mysteries about a Murder solving Priest with nun sidekick)

The series was much lighter up until 1997 this is because it had a supporting cast that included the bumbling Hospital Manager Norman Briggs played by Michael Tucci along with Nurse & Mark's secretary Dolores played by Delores Hall, After 1997 both these characters were no longer included and the series became a grittier affair with a bigger looking budget, some episodes included far more action, one episode the entire Hospital is blown up.

This was a family show For the Van Dyke's because as well as Dick's Son Barry, you also had Dick's Daughter And all his Grandchildren making an appearance in various episodes.

As the series went on it got a bit silly, one episode I remember Dick van Dike plays his entire family, which was a bit out of the ordinary, but on the Whole 'Diagnosis Murder' was a really good TV show which had numerous good Guest Stars.

Since this show finished in 2001, Dick & Barry have appeared together again in the 'MURDER 101' series of TV Movies made by The Hallmark Channel, pretty much following the same path, and still enjoyable. Dick who's now in his mid 80's doesn't seem to change a great deal, and looks as if he'll be working till the bitter end.

TV SHOW **** OUT OF *****


usually I support independent art and i try to be very comprehensive and tolerant...i tend to support everybody, because their efforts are worth...

but this movie just moves away from all comprehension and tolerance limits!

imagine the following situation:

1. think about the REALLY WORST horror movie you have ever seen in your life so far.

2. think about some great, attractive ART for that movie's DVD box...and a promising plot...

3. voilà! you got ZOMBIE NATION.

see it only if you really don't have anything else better to do. ANYTHING is better.


This review is for the UK DVD three-disc box set. Disc one is called Caught in the Act and contains Model Behavior, Chasing Jamie and Fast and Curious. Disc two is called Bedroom Fantasies and contains Blue Plate Special, Falling in Lust Again and Love Potion No. 10. The final disc is called Anything Goes and contains Chatroom, She's the Boss and Legally Yours. Why the other four episodes in the series are not included is a mystery because there is surely enough room on the discs for a lot more material.

Each episode opens with the hotel manager Chloe (Lauren Hayes) reading a letter from a satisfied customer. We then get to see the story unfolding as the guests check into the hotel. Blue Plate Special is the exception because this story is from a waitress. The writers should be given credit for coming up with a good variety of story lines. For instance, Model Behavior is about two models vying for the attention of the photo crew; Falling in Lust Again is about a man and woman who parted and rekindle their love when they meet up again at the hotel; She's the Boss is about a put-upon male secretary/dogsbody who shows that he is more of a man than his female boss realised - much to her pleasure. All the episodes lead up to lots of nudity and sex.

It should come as no surprise that all the characters in this hotel are beautiful women and handsome hunks. Even the geeky secretaries get transformed when they remove their spectacles and let their hair down. The sex action is plentiful but to me seems too frantic and false. The camera work could also have done with a bit of moderation, spending too much time close up and so moving about to capture everything, and as usual we get loud music during the sex action. Finally, the end credits mention the Palm Canopy Hotel, Singer Island, Florida although my map of Florida shows no Singer Island. The scenery certainly looks more like Florida than Utah or Las Vegas that some people have mentioned. This is quite a good effort and it is a pity that the second series is still awaiting a UK DVD release. 4 stars.


'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.

Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh!

If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-

my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).


Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like 'Saturday Night Fever', this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them.


Darling Lili is a mixture of Perfection and Magic! The Stars; Julie Andrews & Rock Hudson could not have done a better attempt if they tried. It's full of all the magic that a young lady wishes for and it makes it seem as if it can all really happen to you. The brilliance of the Director; Blake Edwards is shown to be at his best. He was truly capturing the woman he loved on screen!

The blend of each song, went perfectly with the moment in the film. The Film opened with Julie Andrews singing Whistling Away In The Dark and closed with the same Song by Andrews.

For A Film Of This Excellence To Have Been Such A Failure When It Was Released, Is A Total Shock...

As It Is: 'Inspirational...Purely....Inspirational!' ~One Of Andrews Most Memorable Lines In This Film!


I'm not a massive Disney fan, but my 7 year old son is starting to get into them, so we've built up quite a collection, and this is one of my favourites. We first saw this a couple of weeks ago and we must have see it half a dozen times since! OK, as others have pointed out, not the most complex or inventive of plots, but there's more to a film than that.

Great characters, Phil Harris stealing the show as Thomas O'Malley, but Edgar the butler not far behind. The music is superb - my disabled son always insists that I lift him up and dance with him to 'Everybody wants to be Cat' this says it all. And 'Thomas O'Malley' is just as enjoyable.

I'm not sure why some people have such a downer on this film other than a dislike of cats! And yes, it does take a few of its cues from '101 Dalmations', and maybe 'The Lady and the Tramp' (It's been a long time since I've seen that, so I'm not going to compare them), and while '101 Dalmations' is better in some ways, for me 'The Aristocats' is far more enjoyable. Isn't that what these films are about?

Apart from 'Peter Pan' (now that is a 10/10 film), this is my favourite Disney film. My 7 year-old son loves it, his grumpy 41 year old dad loves it, so you can't ask much more of a family film.

Superb!


October Sky is a highly lauded movie, and it¡¦s easy to see why. The story is easy to comprehend and many turning points are gripping, the actors and actresses do fairly good jobs, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper, the hero finally gets what he wants, and it¡¦s a true story. Frankly I think the director¡¦s achievement is not comparable to the sparks and heat the original story generates. We don¡¦t see any special narrative or cinematography; the power of the movie relies much on the riveting plot and tough situation the young hero is trapped in that most audience will find themselves identify with the characters. We feel Homer¡¦s desire to earn his father¡¦s recognition and create his own future, and his resilience wins our respect. ¡§October Sky¡¨ reminds me of a later 2001 Japanese production of mini series ¡§Rocket Boy,¡¨ which might owe some of the inspiration from this movie. Actually these two works shot from two different cultures provide interesting comparison. When October Sky unfolds a story of a young man crying out loud to claim his right over his own destiny, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ offers a more compromised description that could sometimes constitute an acrid criticism of modern society. Starring the outstanding actor Yuji Oda, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ focuses on three men as ordinary as can be: a travel agent who has a dream of becoming an astronaut, a boastful advertising agent who is on the brink of being torn apart by his inferiority complex resulted from the extreme success of his father and older brother (like what Homer feels in his family), and a food company employee who is about to getting married but scared of this idea. The collected social consciousness superimposes its definition of success on its constituents and steps further to force them suffocate their dreams by claiming them ¡§impossible.¡¨ To compensate for his lost ideal, Kobayashi (Yuji) works in the tour operator because it¡¦s called ¡§Galaxy.¡¨ When his client fails him and his girlfriend decides to leave him, he finally finds strength from his father¡¦s words, who had determined to be a sailor but later found life on the sea less attractive as he had presumed. ¡§But I don¡¦t regret it,¡¨ his father told Kobayashi, ¡§at least I tried.¡¨ It is his father¡¦s confession that encourages him to resign his job and apply for astronautships despite the fact that he hurts his legs and needs to move around on a wheelchair. Kobayashi¡¦s effort finally fails, and he goes back to the travel agency. But his ¡§crazy¡¨ courage inspires his friends, and everyone loves him more. Just before the end of the series, Kobayashi is on the job as a guide of a space camp meant to let children learn more about astronauts. After the tour is over we see him leaning against a tree, unfolding a sheet of poster he tears from the bulletin board that says: ¡§Astronauts Wanted for 2004.¡¨ Kobayashi looks at the piece of paper and laughs and laughs, just like a kid looking at his ticket to Disneyland. Kobayashi may never get what he wants, but he dares his destiny and ¡§just does it.¡¨ This series is so heart-gripping not because the hero exhibits any heroic deeds, but his ordinariness and unstoppable urge to realize his dream which make us wonder and envy. Unlike Dilbert or other sarcastic writings, this show enlightens us and teaches us something. Homer and Kobayashi both have the dream, and they do what they can despite other people¡¦s opinions. I recommend other IMDB users to see the Japanese TV series. If you are a nine-to-fiver, you will feel more touched. I feel sorry that IMDB doesn¡¦t have its data, maybe you can ask somebody from Japan to help you.


The sound in this movie is a nightmare. That is the best I can say for this movie. Any chance of a good story is lost once this films starts. The premise of the film sounds good. A playboy who comes to terms with the people around him. The plot is predictable and very dull. The wet T-Shirt contest may be the worst scene I've ever watched and is almost worth watching in a Mystery Science type of deal. The sound is at times hard to hear and the main actor seems to not know how to speak clearly. His accent makes him very hard to understand. The only bright sport is the acting of Penelope Ann Miller. Her role is underdeveloped but she plays it well. In short, do not waste your time.


This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.

This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!

This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.


Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. 'Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life.' How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred.

The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong.

The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film 'Where the Truth Lies' 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship.

You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in 'Separate Lies,' yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss.

Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002.

Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney.

Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in 'My Best Friend's Wedding' 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in 'An Ideal Husband' 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV.

Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in 'East is East' 1999.


***May Contain Spoilers*** OK, it wasn't exactly as good as expected in fact it was a lot different than I had thought it would be but it still turned out to be a pretty good movie.

I usually don't care too much for that type of music but in this movie it worked perfectly (I mean duh he's a rock star) but anyway I loved Stuart Townsend in this, and Aaliyah, although she had a small part in the movie was amazing.

And even though Tom Cruise played Lestat in the Interview with a Vampire, I have to admit that I am glad he turned down the role even though I normally hate when they use different people to play the same characters in like sequels and stuff.

Overall, the movie was great and I enjoyed watching it, even if there were parts that could have been better. Great vampire movie.


I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.

But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.

It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...


Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck.


More of a near miss than a flop, MR. IMPERIUM stars Ezio Pinza as Alex, heir apparent to and later king of a small European nation, who falls in love with a willing American actress and entertainer, Fredda Barlo (Lana Turner), but due to machinations by the sly prime minister of Alex as king, nicely played by Cedric Hardwicke, the lovers are separated for 12 years before being reunited in Palm Springs where their love is rekindled. Director Don Hartman, who also scripts, is not able to fully utilize his talent for snappy dialogue because of Pinza's tentative English usage, and the requisite rewriting, coupled with less than total rapport in evidence between the two stars, results in a somewhat raggedy tone to the screenplay, exacerbated by the studio's unkind cutting of many scenes, leading to a confusing ending. The overpowering Pinza dominates his scenes with Turner, but both performers score with good work, while Marjorie Main is impressive with her patter effects as written, with Debbie Reynolds placed on track by Louis B. Mayer for SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as a result of her sprightly performance here; only Barry Sullivan is heavily victimized by the flagrant cutting. Prettily filmed largely in Pebble Beach, California, and other Monterey County environs, the film is endowed with Pinza's iron strong operatic basso in Solamente Una Vez, as well as with original songs by Harold Arlen and Dorothy Fields, with Douglas Shearer splendidly handling the sound recording, and notice must be made of the fine set decorations by Edwin Willis, and the effective costume designs by Walter Plunkett.


*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same.

Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.

The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!


This is most likely the best picture not many will see. It presented a culture in a real unhollywoodized way. A must see for all who like Indie and for those who don't. I think this movie will draw more into the Indie scene. The acting was top notch! The character of Alice was portreyed so well. With perfect akwardness. This movie ahould be brought to the mainstream! I think it would do phenominally! ALICE is the most real look at an element of our culture that I have seen since GO ASK ALICE. A look that is untouched by the Hollywood hand. Movies like this show young people that these things aren't glamorous but that they are real and compelling. If you liked PIECES OF APRIL you will love this one!


I went to see this movie mostly because it looked so good in the trailers. Robin Williams and Barry Levinson should equal greatness. Instead it just continues Williams' bad streak of movies lately. What's wrong with the movie? More like what's right: the ensemble crew does a pretty good job around Robin, and like usual, Christopher Walken is fantastic. That being said, this movie just plain wasn't good. I really only recommend seeing it if you want to see what it would be like if Jon Stewart ran for president and won. Saying he won isn't a spoiler, since it was in the trailer. The concept and idea is really amusing, but that's all. Most of Robin's jokes are just recycled from old comedy bits of his, and there are very few laugh out loud moments, and most are just dumb. Like most comedies that turn out to suck, all of the funny bits are put into the trailer. Really no surprises there, but come on! Some of the movie reads like a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn novel! People were expecting this to be Robin's return to greatness. Instead, it's more a Flubber.


This film is like a 1950-version of Ettore Scola's Brutti sporchi e cattivi. Less sex and less realism, but a tale with great humanism and warmth. I wouldn't call this a neo-realistic picture. It's very sentimental and more like a fairy tale, and should probably be classed as a comedy, although it deals with serious matters (a little like Chaplin or 1930-comedy). Typical Italian though, very emotional, and hard to resist except for a stone cold person. The sentimentalism is a letdown, although this picture was not meant to be a realistic drama. It's not a masterpiece like Umberto D or The Bicycle Thief. But it is a lovable and hilarious comedy, with good music.

7/10


After a man turns up dead, a soldier becomes the prime suspect. Undoubtedly the best film to feature three Roberts and all of them are in fine form. Young is the cool-headed, pipe-smoking cop investigating the murder, Mitchum is the murder suspect's concerned friend, and Ryan is a hot-headed soldier with something to hide. Grahame has a brief but effective role as a femme fatale. Future Tarzan Barker has a bit part as a soldier. This film touches on anti-semitism, a subject also covered in Best Picture Oscar winner 'Gentleman's Agreement,' which was released the same year. It is solidly directed by Dmytryk, who creates an effective film noir atmosphere.


Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.

Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved 'innocent' because he could not have spoken to witnesses.

Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.

Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn.


This is the second movie based on the life and times of ultra hung porn star, John Curtis Estes, better known as John Holmes. Boogie Nights is also roughly based on his life. Maybe someday someone is going to do a movie on the life of Tommy Byron instead.

The problem is, that the story is not very well told. There are many Law & Order episodes that have more twists and turns than Wonderland, and the director never gets the criminal case going with any kind of gusto. Val Kilmer has two problems - he is not nearly as hung as Holmes is (and no prosthesis this time around, unlike in Boogie Nights), and he is much better looking than mope Holmes.

The director does not introduce one single likable individual among the cast. The racist, immature lowlifes he hangs out with, or his wife, and the police don't get much in the way of characterization.

The best part of the movie is Eric Bogosian telling Paris Hilton to 'get lost'.

Having said all that, anyone interested in the sleaziest side of the porn business in the 1980s or true crime shouldn't miss it.


This is meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music.


This has got to be one of absolute worst movies I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting are just pathetic. It ranks right up there with Uncle Sam on the all time worst movies ever made. However, when I see crap like this able to make it to video, it really inspires me to pursue my wild dreams of making films because I know I could do a better job than what the makers of Killers did.


Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.

Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.

Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp


just watched this 'film' and it actually made me want to write my first comment on IMDb.com, even though i've been a user for more than 9 years. the reason that i watched this, is because i like splatter films and sometimes i like to test my limits and see what actually still shocks me. first of all, the gore in this film didn't shock me, not even the idea that someone came up with this and made it into a film - what really shocked me, is that there seems to be a market for this kind of crap. don't get me wrong - i'm all against censorship, but this film seems to me like it was made for some kind of fetish crowd that seems to get off on this type of sh*t.it didn't give you that same kind of disgust and guilt that one felt after watching films like 'august underground'. that film is terrible to watch, but at least you get the feeling that the filmmakers want to show you how disgusting violence is. in the case of 'niku daruma', it seems like it was made strictly to arouse people. i prefer films that shock, because they are well done and thought through, like Gaspar Noe's films, or Takashi Miike's, or Funny Games or Man Bites Dog - those films will stick with you for a while. this film i will have forgotten by tomorrow, and the only thing that will stick with me, is the thought, that somewhere out there, there are people getting aroused by watching this sh*t. if you read this, please check yourself into the next hospital or shoot yourself - this of course does not apply to gore hounds, who just love splatter. you're cool! peace


Anyone who doesn't laugh all through this movie has been embalmed. I have watched it at least twenty times and I still get tears in my eyes at many of the scenes. Sally Field is absolutely perfect as Celest Talbert, a fading soap star whose supporting cast is trying to get her replaced in hopes that their own star will rise. Fields, at 45, still has that wonderful and beautiful pixie quality and a perfect figure that belies her having had three children. I'm biased, I'm in love with her.

The cast of 'Soapdish' is filled with stars who perform their roles to perfection. Kevin Kline is flawless, as are Robert Downey Jr., an ingénue Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher in one of her early roles, Carrie Fisher as the oversexed casting director who auditions an actor for a small part as a waiter without his shirt on. Kathy Najimy is wonderful as the hapless costume designer, and best of all, Cathy Moriarty as Nurse Nan who leads the plot to get Fields character removed from the show is hilarious.

This movie should have won Oscars for best comedy, best leading lady in a comedy, best leading man in a comedy and myriad other bests, including writing, directing and supporting actors and actresses. Get the DVD so you can watch it over and over for the next twenty five years. You will still be laughing at it when the disc wears out.


There is no reason to watch this film.

Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.

'Repeat?'

'Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie.'

'The whole movie?'

'Yes, the whole movie.'

Etc.

In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good 'Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!' villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.

As I understand it our 'heros' are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.

I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.

The opening credits were nice.


Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for 'Eastenders' being paraded as realistic.

Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.

Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.

Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from 'The Queen's Royal Charity' rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.

Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.

Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?

[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.

As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.

BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.

Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.


The best movie about friendship! Especially between an AIDs infected person and a ' normal ' person. This is a great movie for everyone to see even though there is strong language used. I have seen it 25 times.


There could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see 'The War') and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see 'Chasing Liberty' which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of 'Run Lola Run.' So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from 'A Christmas Story' and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be 'THE girl' by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie.


Another period piece for Chen Kiage... (can't remember him doing a modern film!)...

Good characterization with a simple story of trust and broken promises. None of the HK fighting scenes, or the Hollywood type of heroes, but it is good because of it. The characters are strong, I really felt for them.

Understanding the mandarin definitely gives the English subtitles the edge. The film is 3 hours, but it didn't feel like it.


After all these years I still consider this series the finest example of World War II documentary film making. The interviews with the many participants from all countries set this apart from any other project. It would be great to see a contemporary documentarian(Ken Burns ?) take on this topic and try to gather information from veterans before they are all gone. With modern technology to improve old archival footage and lots of information that has been unearthed since 1974 when The World At War was produced, an updated version of this series would be welcome. The History Channel has made some fine shows dealing with many aspects of WWII but an expansive series such as the World At War has not been successfully attempted since the original. If you are interested in this era don't miss this series. It is required viewing.


**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink-the 'Cinemagic' process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.


I've often heard people express disappointment that Mazursky's 'Tempest' has little to do with Shakespeare's original. In my opinion, that is both true and false, but most of all, it's a bad starting point for offering critique. A work of art should never be criticised for what it isn't, but for what it is. The movie 'Tempest' is nothing like a faithful rendition of the play, but to my mind, it is faithful to Shakespeare's work in spirit. What 'Tempest' is, then, is perhaps one of the most successful experimental films of all time. No, not experimental as in hand- held camera and mumbled dialogue, but experimental as in exploring the convolutions of a story without undue regard for box office earnings. Mazursky's Tempest is epic, sad, realistic, joyous, full of life, but most of all, it is imaginative. Cassavetes portrayal of Philip/Prospero is in itself worth a 10/10 rating, and when you add Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, a wonderfully deep Molly Ringwald, Raul Julia, the dialogue, the music and the exquisitely suggestive little tableaux scattered throughout the picture... I rest my case. One of the best movies of the 80's. Don't miss it.


I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is 'Jack-O'

The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much 'horror' ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.

I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.

And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.

That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.


Yeah this films is tops. Cant recommend it more. Gay or strait its a great doco for anyone who likes film. Very funny, sad and interesting. Never dull. Great access. A film made with passion and interest in the subject matter. Some of the performances and just amazing. If you only find this film on VHS it is still very worth watching. Great. 10 out of 10. I got to see part of this doco years about ten years ago and did not understand what I was watching. The interviews are very revealing about egos of the performers who are like heavy- weight boxers trying to punch their way out of the ghetto. The filmmaker was apparently a first timer so what an achievement. Cool. Track it down.


Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.

1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger.

2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror.

3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in 'Laura,' 'The Ox-Bowl Incident,' 'A Walk in the Sun,' 'The Purple Heart' and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance?

4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor.

5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).

6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on 'Bonanza.'

7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.

***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.


I'd love to see some tie-in between NightBreed, The Fury, and the X-Men Series, sort of the way the second Outer Limit's Series would tie-in particular stories and plot-lines after the fact, to create a Story Arc although one was never intended. I'd also like know if some more information - anecdotal or otherwise, exists anywhere about the relationship and/or collaboration between Clive Barker and David Cronenberg. I simply can't get my mind around the fact that David Cronenberg appeared as a mere actor in a Clive Barker film. Does any additional information on the subject actually exist? Finally, it's been 17 years since the film was released, and I had hoped there would've been a sequel by now. Does anyone out there know if there were any plans in the making that never came to fruition, or if in fact there are plans even now for a sequel?


Why has this not been released? I kind of thought it must be a bit rubbish since it hasn't been. How wrong can a girl be! This film is, in a word, enthralling.

You will be captivated. It holds your attention from the start and its pace never slows.

The final part of the film, the 'episode' as it were (not giving anything away, you saw that in the trailer) is also unmissable. You will chose a favourite, you will be shocked, you wont be able to go and make a cup of coffee because you need to find out what happens. The adrenalin rises and you cant not watch. Cudos to the actors, it's very believable. And it doesn't stop there, they have a final shock for you.

It also makes you question reality TV and if you would watch. And how far away from this are we, really? Endemol (who make big brother) made a TV show in Holland last year offering a dying woman's kidney to patients in need of a transplant. The show was revealed at the end to be a hoax, ostensibly to raise awareness of organ donation, but are we getting too close for comfort?


THE worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen allot. Acting is horrible, plot is awful, idea is terrible, and no research was done what's so ever! Ok, I admit, `Air Bud' was a pretty good movie, but not `Soccer Dog'. This 'dog' is smaller than my cat! How can he possibly play soccer? Even for 10 years old kids it won't be a problem to kick the ball hard enough to brake the stupid dog in half! It's horrible, don't watch this movie.


I was initially dubious about this movie (merely because of the subject), but the richly drawn characters, the fabulous scenes of the buffalo hunt, and the dramatic conclusion make it well-worth watching. I initially had trouble distinguishing between the two buffalo hunters but as the movie progressed they increasingly distinguished themselves. I am still haunted by the final scene.


The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will 'get it,' it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.

Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with 'Jesus is Magic' as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.

Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot.


I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time.

It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.

And the tagline, 'Revenge can be deadly'....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?

It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.


'Classe tous risques' feels like the granddaddy of 'The Sopranos' in mixing the criminal and the domestic, and of the buddy film to feel as contemporary as 'Reservoir Dogs.'

Even as these gangsters are affectionately entangled with wives, children, lovers and parents, they are coldly ruthless, and we are constantly reminded they are, no matter what warm situation we also see them in. They can tousle a kid's hair - and then shoot a threat in cold blood. The key is loyalty, and the male camaraderie is beautifully conveyed, without ethnic or class stereotypes, even as their web of past obligations and pay backs narrows into suspicion and paranoia, as the old gang is in various stages of parole, retirement, out on bail or into new, less profitable ventures. An intense accusation is of sending a stranger to perform an old escape scenario. It is a high point of emotion when a wife is told off that she's not the one the gangster is friends with, while virtually the only time we hear music on the soundtrack is when he recalls his wife.

Streetscapes in Italy and France are marvelously used, in blinding daylight to dark water and highways, from the opening set up of a pair of brazen robbers -- who are traveling with one's wife and two kids. Rugged, craggy Lino Ventura captures the screen immediately as the criminal dad. And the second thug is clearly a casually avuncular presence in their lives, as they smoothly coordinate the theft and escape, in cars, buses, on boats and motorcycles, in easy tandem. This is not the cliché crusty old guy softened with the big-eyed orphan; these are their jobs and their families and they intersect in horrific ways.

The film pulls no punches in unexpectedly killing off characters, directly and as collateral damage, and challenging our sympathy for them, right through to the unsentimental end, which is probably why there was never an American remake.

It seems so fresh that it's not until Jean-Paul Belmondo enters almost a third of the way into the film, looking so insouciant as a young punk, that one realizes that this is from 1960. Sultry Sandra Milo has smart and terrific chemistry with him, from an ambulance to an elevator to a hospital bed.

While the Film Forum was showing a new 35 mm print with newly translated subtitles, it was not pristine. The program notes explained that the title refers to a kind of insurance policy and is pun on 'tourist class.'


This is an absolutely incredible film. It shows South African racism from the perspective of the victims, and provokes a feeling of anti-racism in everyone who sees it. It is the best historic film I have ever seen.


I've watched a lot of television in my 51 years, but I've never had so much fun week after week, as I had watching Oz. The acting by the entire cast was excellent. The writing was just perfect, with every character remaining consistent throughout the six year run. I also enjoyed the mayhem and the ultra-violence. It may sound odd, but it was at times, comical finding out how one of the characters would eventually end up dead. I particularly enjoyed the true romance and love between Beecher and Keller. Those two men really knew how to throw down, in every way possible. I truly hope that HBO will continue to show us re-runs of this great show FOREVER! I've watched every episode at least 4 times yet I still look forward to Tuesday and Thursday nights at 11 p.m. for an episode of this fun and very entertaining show.


OK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.

The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).

Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.

What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.

The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).

All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.

I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...


A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.


I watched this film with my family over a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. I am thankful that someone insisted that we watch it, though I didn't pay much attention until the end of the film when a head shearing seems promised, but, alas, doesn't happen.

On the other hand, I watched this movie some years later and loved its liveliness, absurdity, sparkle, and just plain fun. I think that the film has a female tone. Women are not exploited in it even though I am sure that someone might think that the movie is pure exploitation. I think the movie plays with tropes of the period.

I keep thinking someone ought to remake it. And flesh out some of the implications in the original.


Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film 'A Death in Venice. ' Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. ****


I wasn't so impressed with this film, finding it quite tiresome and plain. The plot line was interesting, a kid creating his own college and enrolling hundreds of kids, but the laughs were few and far between. The jokes weren't really funny and i didn't bust a gut at any of the scenes. The characters weren't intriguing and I didn't feel for any of them, even the dawky, fat kid with glasses who tried to enter the frat group. It was a good first watch, but it didn't blow me away and its not one that I would recommend. Comparing it to other films in the same genre, ie, American Pie is just cruel, because there is a film which was laugh-a-plenty. This ACCEPTED failed to raise a smile!


Very funny to watch 'Beretta's Island' as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!


The first half of this movie is a pure delight. Novel. Funny. Wonderful performances. A close knit brother and sister living in Manhattan fall for the same woman! Adult. Bright. Witty. What more could you ask. As a romantic comedy this starts refreshing. It heads into unexplored territory. And then it falls apart.

It goes from being a universal adult comedy to a coming-of-age coming-out-of-the-closet story that has been done many times before. What a disappointment. As a people film it begins with such promise. Why does it need to turn into such a pedestrian 'I am who I am' film. The freeze-frame ending shot of Heather Graham's jumping in the air to celebrate 'her happiness at finding herself' underlines the banality of the last part of the film.

It could have been different. It could have been magical. It ended up being the same old same old.


OK...before I even start the more or less constructive criticism of the movie I'd like to say a few words which come from the heart... THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! DON'T GO TO SEE IT UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE SWEATY BOY-BANDS AND WOODEN-ACTING, NO-PLOT STORIES.. So, let's go to why I think the movie is so bad: 1. There is not story line. There is no plot. The director tried to create a mystery it the feeling just wasn't there. 2. The whole thing looks like a big, hour and a half promotion for some kind of goth-wanna-be-but-still-looking-like-'BSB'-band... All guys in school have perfect abs, no fat or ugly young people... there is no good looking girl in the movie as well, not one. The main character is either wet in the swimming pool, or all sweaty in his bed... poor guy. Must be awful to go on a date sweating like that. 3. Can those guys do something good with their powers? Anything good? Like put off the fire in that old barn or help his friend who got into the accident instead of just running around breaking things and showing of in front of each other. 4. Wooden acting. The main character only has two expressions on his face. Expression number one: sad. Expression number two: trying to look seductive but still seems sad... In that boy band there are 4 guys: The main characted, his best friend who got into the accident, the blondy, and the fourth one... what was the name of the fourth one? I think he only spoke twice throughout the whole film: once in the beginning ( he said the jumping from the cliff using 'the power' won't kill them) and second time at the end when he and the blondy lost the girl... the movie could have been done without him and no one would notice... Anyways, my verdict: 1 is the perfect score for this film. Guys - do not go to see it. There is very little action, no suspense, no hot girls. Girls - a least the actors are good looking... What I would advise you people is to get a soundtreck of this movie - that's the only thing I liked about it.


Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****


Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.