Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.

The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.

The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.

Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.

Overall 7/10


This film as it is now is far shorter than it was when released in 1918. In fact, it is now more available with two other medium sized silent Chaplin features (A DOG'S LIFE, and THE PILGRIM) that Chaplin re-released in the 1950s. In it's day SHOULDER ARMS was a big hit because of it's humor in uniform approach. It still is very funny (Chaplin in disguise as a tree, spying on the Germans, is so ridiculous it's hysterical), but it suffers from being set in it's own age. Charlie's dealing with World War I, a hideous conflict that killed 20 million people, but not the worst war (horrible to say) of the 20th Century. Chaplin would live to see that war too, and would spoof it's main architects in THE GREAT DICTATOR. But the latter is more accessible to modern audiences because that movie is a talking picture. Also, Hitler as a target seems more important to audiences in 2008 than Kaiser Wilhelm II and his general staff.

SHOULDER ARMS was to take us through the drafting of the tramp, his training, his getting use to trench warfare, and his actual fighting against the 'Huns' on the Western Front. Much of this is now gone - one segment (when Albert Austin is a Doctor examining Chaplin in his office at the draft center) is still in existence and was shown completely in the documentary UNKNOWN CHAPLIN. This is unfortunate, because the film is now roughly forty five minutes long, and there seems to be gaps that these scenes filled out. What remains is first rate but one leaves wanting more...and feeling a trifle cheated.

Sydney Chaplin and Henry Bergman do well in supporting parts, especially Sydney as Wilhelm. He had done it before in a short with Charlie for the sale of bonds, giving a militaristic speech before being clobbered by the tramp with a huge hammer labeled 'War Bonds'). Here we see the tramp succeed in capturing Wilhelm and the general staff at the conclusion. It was only topped by Stan and Ollie capturing the German army with a tank and barbed wire in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES.

The funny thing is that Chaplin actually had a major crisis as a result of his wartime activities. He was not a naturalized American - not in 1917 or in 1952, when Attorney General McGranery publicly announced that Chaplin could not return to the U.S. because he was an enemy alien (Chaplin and his family were in Europe on a trip - in anger Charlie settled in Switzerland for the rest of his life, except when he made A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG and when he went to Hollywood for his special career 'Oscar' in the 1970s). Because he was not an American he could not be drafted by the U.S. So he sold (with Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and Mary Pickford) U. S. War Bonds. But in Great Britain tens of thousands had perished in World War One battlefields, and the public there was upset at Chaplin, who they considered a 'slacker' and a coward. Chaplin eventually did overcome this, but remnants of the resentment followed him until he died. This does not detract from the success of SHOULDER ARMS as a film, but it does suggest why Chaplin did not do another modern war film until 1940, and a worthier target.


Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack.

The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.


IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.

Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.

Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.

Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.

Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!


This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was 'Survivor' or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.


Years ago I read the book 'A Máquina' (The machine). As I re-read this little book again and again, I could never stop getting more and more fascinated by the imagination of the writer and the richness of the Brazilian culture.

When I knew about the movie, I was really scared that someone would spoil one of my favorites books! Well, happily, my fears were unjustified and the movie is such a wonderful and delicate piece of art.

I can't recall of any other movie that could bring tears to my eyes due to the very beauty of the text. Also I can't recall such a powerful performance like Gustavo Falcão's.

You can see and feel how colossal his love for Karina is. You can realize that he'll move mountains and do anything for this love.

Do see this movie, watch it thru the eyes of the kid that lives inside you, enchant yourself!


Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed.


The Neil Simon's Sunshine Boys starring Walter Matthau and George Burns is a funny comedy on the strange bond to the life and its shortness, but the laughter always bitter taste. Seeing Willy Clark(Matthau) and Al Lewis(Burns) two big theatrical comedy actors now reduced on the imbecility from the hard and unceasing old age you can feel only anger and blue. Willy not ever surrender and continue to look work, while Al is tired for players and he is retired to the country in the house to his daughter. The couple in his old time was truly funny and harmony, but out the scene was a continue squabble and to quarrel, and for eleven years after their broken they not talk between. Now if they would work, they must return together another time for do one of his best old sketch for a comedy story TV show. The meets is explosive and liberating for the old questions. The Neil Simon's screenplay give a certain corrosive spirit to the story and the melancholy and blue overwhelming the many gags and laughter succeeded to generate a good mix also thanks to a great couple Walter Matthu(Nomination Academy Award as Best Actor) and George Burns(Won the Academy Award as Best Support Actor). The two actors are very believable and real and the their harmony seems almost as they real work together for all that time and that realty they not bear between them. The movie is very touching also for its all consuming reality as the story is narrate and how the report Love-Heat that bind the two actors is totally real part to the strange but at the same time ordinarily comprehensible things to the life. My rate is 7.


The documentary presents an original theory about 'Guns, Germs and Steel'. The series graphically portray several episodes strongly supporting the theory, and defend the theory against common criticism.

I was deeply puzzled to find user comments complaining about lack of new information in these series. They say documentary presents information which is taught in middle school. Indeed, it does. In fact, I greatly enjoyed the original look at the information which I have known since middle school and the unexpected analysis.

So, if you like knowing WHY things work, if you have taken apart the telephone trying to determine how it worked, if you have gone to the farm to see how farm works and how cows are milked, you will enjoy this series. A definite recommendation.


This is definitely one of the most scary and spell-binding films ever made. You are stuck to the movie from the beginning to the very end. Even though there are some plot holes, it keeps being exciting to the final showdown. Besides '8 MM' and 'Peeping Tom' this is one of the best films about 'Snuff Movies', a taboo theme of our culture. If you like the SCREAM Trilogy, you will probably love that one.


As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -'This is the sh**test film I have ever seen'. We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier.

I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead 'Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel.' Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.

I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection ('Man, I love this film') I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love.

Oh Lord I hate this film.


Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.

There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.

Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust.


I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film.


This was a great movie with a good cast, all of them hitting on all cylinders. And when Dianne Keaton is at her best, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. But Tom Everett Scott, always underrated, was even better. He should be a star.

My only complaint is with one aspect of the screenplay. None of the characters ever acknowledged that the dead daughter wasn't always a good person. And neither was her mother, played by Keaton. At one point she breaks a promise she made to one character not to reveal that he had been sleeping around.

One of the other commentators said the movie had a 'political agenda'. That is a baffling thing to say. There was no politics at all in this movie.


Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, 'Seven Pounds' races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile.

Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.

However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.

One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.

Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.


This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! And then, other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.


This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.

Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.

While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.

Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.

Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.


I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.

Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.

To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt.


Clint Howard, brother of more talented Ron, stars in this abysmally awful horror comedy about a mental case who serves ice cream to children and kills people. Striving to be a movie that's of the 'so bad that it's good' variety, this film misses that mark by a good mile and instead has to be seen as 'so bad that it's...well...BAD'. Wheter it's the constant 'shoe ad' cinema, the pillow stuffed 'fat kid', or the sleep inducing 'horror' that soured me on the film, i don't know, all I know is I loathed the film (and this from a guy who has a soft spot for B-horror films). Paul Norman choose to continue making films in the porn industry both before and after this, his only 'mainstream' film. A wise choice indeed as horrible acting, nonsense storyline, and ludicrous dialog are much MUCH more palatable while seeing a porn starlet do her thing. Funnily enough this turkey has absolutely NO nudity (another reason to steer clear)

My Grade: D-


When I first watched this film, I thought that it would be rally good, because it featured my favourite actor of all time. He gives a sterling performance, though it is fairly obvious he didn't have to life more than half a finger to make the róle work. He is the only good thing in it, unlesss you're into explosions and American dream-working class hero trash (which I'm not).

I don't get it. How can this film get away with being so naf. That bit with the little boy being rescued, I mean, come on! You can't tell me that he would have been rescued without the fire-guy wearing any goggles (I know for a fact that it would have been pitch black in there and you can't see for more than a couple of feet infront of you) and no breathing equipment (he'd have choked after 2 minutes!). This film was just bad, OK?

Why Robert? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????!!!!

Sorry if this is your favourite film.


I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10


Caught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame.


'Snowball Express' from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from 'Deliverance'--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from ****


Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about 'star power.' This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about 'star power' is: the more 'star power' used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/'star power', less 'sp' makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: 'more is less.')

-Z


Sublime--perfect--profound--a true lesson on the idealized meaning of life. We get completely caught up in the life journeys of Martina and Phillipa and

Babette. Their yearnings, desires, sacrifices resonant long after the movie has ended. Seeing it years ago--as it was gaining a great deal of notoriety at the audaciousness of its subject matter--half the movie being a single dinner--the audience was 'oohing and aahing' as some of the courses took their final

glorious shape, laughing at the reaction of the diners, as they became totally seduced by the gustatorial pleasures being introduced to them by Babette, and being totally surprised at the turn of events at the end of the film. Subsequently seeing the film years later after my own twists and turns of life, I realized just how profound the film is. On this viewing tears flowed freely. The film's

meditation on the passage of time and the way it uses a seemingly simple story to comment on life and love and art and generosity is truly something to

cherish.


So one day I was in the video store looking for a movie. I came across this and rented it because it was a film I hadn't seen or even heard of.

Now I like slasher movies in general, but this is just abysmal, not even good for laughs. Besides being ultra ultra cheap and containing all slasher film cliches and terrible acting it has the most incompetent and inept direction I have ever come across. Now sometimes the aforementioned traits can be present in a film and some enjoyment can still be had, but not here. Painful example of home-made horror.


it's a super movie!!!! i only seen it once but it's very good if you like music like in disco's and don't have problem with drugs.... It's fantastic movie!!!! it's only a little bit to short! but when you watch the movie make sure your sound system is at 100%!!! then you will love the music in the film and the funny things that a guy from the country comes never drink any alcohol and then he is under drugs in the biggest disco's and love the music!!

the only problem is that i want to buy it and i can't find it! so if anyone knows where i could buy the movie pleas mail me!!!

greets me from Holland

pleas reply me!!


Awful is really all one needs to know. First think of all the things that could be bad about a movie. And then try to make a movie that is bad in all of these ways. You will have made 'Vacationland.' The state of Maine should feel insulted: it's much too nice a place to serve as the backdrop for such trite, mindless, boring schlock. I'm a romantic, and I always want movies about two people finding each other to succeed, and I tried hard to find the good in this one. It was tough; very tough. I couldn't find a glimmer of emotional connection among any of the characters in this exercise in humdrum dreariness. Except maybe in one or two of the bad guys.

Maine IS a good vacationland; this movie is not.


This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses


Now, I'm a big fan of Zombie movies. I admit Zombie movies usually aren't all that good, but I like them anyways. Despite the crappy acting and worthless dialogues that occur in almost all Zombie movies, this one is by far the worst. See, there are a few ground rules with zombie-movies. 1. Zombies are suicidal. Tactics is seldom used, and NEVER do they act like a boxer. They don't dodge a blow to the head, they take it with a ugly smile. They don't try and hit you in the face, they grab a hold of your arm and bite it! 2. Zombies can't speak. Only in Evil Dead. Otherwise, they DO NOT SPEAK. 3. You don't fight zombies with melee-ranged weapons. You loose in a melee fight against zombies. Firearms are used. In this movie however, melee is the way to go, which is wrong. Very wrong.

It had NO redeeming qualities.

If you wish to see a Zombie movie, see one with an average score higher than 3 on IMDb.com


This movie was okay, but it certainly defeats the claim that homosexuals are 'born that way,' especially when a woman can exit out of an unhappy marriage and just fall into the arms of another woman. It almost seems as if Kate's gender preferences turned on and off like a switch, making this film seem a little simplistic.

Also, as is common with films that are trying to push an agenda, it was unfortunate that those characters in the film who had questions or disapproval over the gay lifestyle were labeled as 'bigots.' And there was no happy medium. It was either Kate's friends and relatives totally embraced her or they totally shunned her. This is not typical of interactions between gay and non-gay relatives and friends. It is usually a mixture of emotions and values that come into play. It is possible to love people and treat them with respect while not necessarily condoning the choices they make. Sadly, the movie showed none of these types of interactions. For a movie trying to portray tolerance and acceptance, it struck me as very intolerant movie! Then at the end, Kate apparently decides after all these years she wants to be with Mac and everything is hunky dory - is that what being gay is really all about? Come on!


Years ago, I caught a fairly well made TV movie entitled 'Linda'. It was made in 1973, and starred Stella Stevens in the femme fatale title roll. Imagine my surprise when, over ten years later, I once again saw the same story unfold on late night TV. However, it was this 1993 version, starring Virginia Madsen. Don't get me wrong, I can handle remakes, even obscure ones. But this badly written and poorly filmed retread made me feel sorry for both Madsen and co-star Richard Thomas. Unlike the original, the dialogue here is cliched, making me wonder, 'Why did they bother to re-write it?' Second, the camera work is very heavy-handed, and the the film stock is poor. At times I felt reminded of the student film competition at the beginning of Christopher Guest's 'The Big Picture'. Finally, the cast looks either bored (Madsen) or suffering (Thomas). In fact, the only one who seems like he's really enjoying the work is Ted McGinley. Of course, with his perfectly coifed hair and capped teeth, he's really stretching himself from his previous work on 'The Love Boat'. Bottom line, to borrow a critique from Opus the Penguin in Bloom County:

'This movie does for film what Jonestown did for Kool-Aid.'

Thomkat


I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.


For anyone who has only seen Disney Productions beautifully animated version of 'Beauty & The Beast', or even Jean Cocteau's surreal fairy tale vision will be quite taken aback by this 1975 French (but with a director from Poland) version. The plot concerns a French family of fading aristocracy that is marrying into a well to do English family. The major catch is that the bridegroom is carrying an ancient curse on the family. The film also includes many flashback sequences (potentially) explaining this family curse. From the opening credits, to the very end, it's a nearly non stop erotic fun house ride, with some VERY explicit & graphic sexual content (hence the film's X rating in the U.S. in it's initial run,which is now unrated). The film's somewhat contemptuous sentiment at the ruling class will probably remind one of Bunuel's flights into similar territory. If you have a taste for the truly bizarre, and are not offended by 'taboo' material, then this film may just scratch that itch for you.


I can never figure if this is the Artiest Soap Opera ever produced, or the Soapiest Art Movie. No matter, John Seale's cinematogaphy is utterly ravishing. Ondaatje's novel is not reduced, but for once, elevated to film. If there is a fault, it is in the original novel, not in Anthony Minghella's beautiful movie. Anyone who has a problem with it's length almost certainly has not read the book, and probably cannot read. I do not like repeating adjectives, but ravishing serves the purpose.

Apart from the storyline, the players excel. But it is the Australian sense of light and shade that ultimately triumphs. Like some antipodean Dutch Master, Seale uses a blast of light, where Van Rijn would have used shade. One could weep for cinematography this magnificent.


Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.

Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.

It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).


Given the low budget and production limitations, this movie is very good. It is plausible, realistic, and shows how the Csikos (Hungarian horsemen who lived on the plains (puszta) risked their lives to save a downed American pilot from the ruthless and savage Nazis. We are drawn into strong feelings for the young, impressionable, yet highly courageous boy--who admires the American pilot. If you're looking for special effects, superman heroes, and magical endings--this movie is not for you. If you want to feel what it must have been like to dodge the persistent, amoral Nazis and their lack of compassion, then you will be enthralled by this movie. I truly enjoyed it and for those who love horses, dogs, and humble, helpful people who value freedom and those who aspire to that end, this movie will be one you'll remember for a long time.


Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.

What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in 'Witness for the Prosecution,' should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.

The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.

Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.

Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.

Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in 'The Ten Commandments' to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.


Rajkumar Santoshi tries his hands at comedy and succeeds. One of the few good movies that involves Salman Khan. A very funny movie from start to finish. All the characters contribute to the movie and believe me, there are a lot of them. Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Raveena Tandon, Karishma Kapoor, Paresh Rawal, Viju Khote, Jagdip, Deven Verma, Shakti Kapoor, Harish Patel, Tiku Talsania and more. The direction, editing, sound are not up to par, but that still does not matter, because the actors more than make up for that part.


This had all the makings of a very good film -- good actors (Robert Loggia, Ellen Parker), a good plot (mysterious missile from space threatens to burn up the planet) and lots of stock footage (if the Air Force had film of jets firing rockets, it was used). Unfortunately, it is ruined by too much melodrama and an impossible time-line.

The movie concerns a missile from space that is attacked by the Soviets and inadvertently diverted into a low atmospheric orbit. At under five miles and at a speed in excess of 4,000 miles, it emits an exhaust of a million degrees, burning up everything on the ground, including glaciers, Distant Early Warning (DEW) line bases and Eskimos.

Every attempt at destroying the missile fails.

The first flaws in this film appear early on. While we don't expect much from low-budget films, some things can't be forgotten -- like a little research. For instance, both the Soviets and the US fire anti-ballistic missiles that home in on the missile with unerring accuracy. However, the first successful ABM tests weren't done until March of 1961 by the Russians.

There is too much melodrama. Dr. Loring (Loggia) and his assistant Joan Woods (Ellen Parker) play their romance with about as much wood as a log cabin. Parker's character cries and boo-hoos at Loggia's sacrifice like she was at a screen test. Loggia is about as heroic as a bored businessman. A scientist (Phillip Pine) hams it up so much he makes William Shatner look like a thespian. A bus driver continually spits out end-of-the-world crap in scene after scene. The only good actor is the film narrator, played by veteran character actor Lawrence Dobkins ('Naked City').

All of this could be overlooked if it wasn't for the time-line. After the missile's info is sent to DC, the Pentagon brings in a group of scientists. A general (Larry Kerr) announces that the missile will hit New York City in 63 minutes. After this, there are discussions by scientists and there is a deadly lull as word is sought from ambassadors to see if the missile is an attack from the Russians and if a response is necessary.

The film shows the military being fully scrambled. Civil Defense people leave work and go to their stations. Eight million people scramble to fallout shelters while school buses pick up millions of kids (and we get to see the whitest New York City I've ever seen, though watching 50's sci-fi films made it seems like this was the standard). The press is kept in the dark for tens of minutes. Then, incredibly, a man at the Pentagon announces that the missile will hit Ottawa, Canada in 51 minutes! All of the aforementioned action happened in 12 minutes! Then, to add fuel to the fire, Loggia somehow thinks of a way to stop the alien missile. He slowly produces a caseload of plutonium, loads it in a jeep and takes it from DC to a distant missile base to put it atop a missile. Along the way, he is knocked off the road by a wild driver, breaks down and then is carjacked. He finally gets the plutonium back and drives to the base to arm the missile. Again, all this in the same 63-minute time frame.

The movie also irks the viewer by making it seem as if Ottawa might be saved, only to show men, women and children get roasted. The missile is then said to have five minutes to reach New York. Loggia is still driving to the base (4 more miles to go). He gets to the base and arms the missile, a two-minute countdown is then announced. All within five minutes. The boroughs of New York should have been at least scorched.

By the way, the missile is destroyed if you haven't guessed. The ABM warhead destroys it with a massive plutonium-based nuclear blast. Five seconds later, the blast dissipates and all is clear. Yeah, they caused a nuclear blast equivalent to 100 Hiroshimas on the outskirts of New York City and nothing happens.

The film had all the elements necessary to be a good B film, but wasted them. Loggia played his character so lamely you didn't care that he sacrificed himself in the end. You didn't care about the other characters, not even the smarmy scientist played by Pine. The tension that should have moved the film along just wasn't physically possible in the time-line allowed (it still wouldn't be today, not even with Jack Bauer).

This film is very difficult to find. As far as I know, it hasn't been re-issued on any medium and for good reason. I don't know if the film meant to be or if it was standard practice, but there's a scene where the government sends all of the best scientists, military men and businessmen into deep shelters, saying they're too valuable to lose. There isn't a single woman or minority in the bunch. Hari Rhodes is the only black man in the film and he gets a brief bit playing a piano. It was worse than '27 Days' where an alien gives five Earthlings the chance to either save or destroy the planet and he doesn't include any blacks or Hispanics.

I saw this on a special Sci-fi night on Turner Classic Movies and I don't expect it to show up again. If you do find a copy of this somewhere, you might want to put it up on Amazon.com.


I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor.

The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.

The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity.

A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting.


There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.

'Loaded' tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.

While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.

Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.

Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.

Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through.


Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.

One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.

Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.

The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.


Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.


Everything about this film is hog wash. Pitiful acting, awful dialog, ugly native girls. this movie sinks into oblivion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The director must have been a weekend bender. Robert C. is totally lost and has not got a clue on what is going on . The college kids are worst. No acting talent at all, very stupid reasoning, and just down right dumbbells. Special effects are for the birds. The so called security force around this park belongs in toy land: with stupid looking guns, walkie talkies that are useless; and a computer system that ranks with a roll of toilet paper. if the park is under construction and nothing works; why bother inviting potential clients until everything is complete. the writers should be the first victims of the mess along with the producers and the crew. The whole film belongs in a septic tank shot to another planet for viewing. What a gem. Convicts should have to watch this, so they can commit suicide.


I'm not sure I've ever seen a film as bad as this. Awful acting, All over the place plot, terrible special effects. There are some 'so bad its good' moments in here but not really enough to maintain interest. The woman who plays Tracey looks hideous. There are some fairly worrying scenes with a dwarf which leave you feeling ever so slightly violated. On the plus side the operation scenes are fairly amusing for the special effects as is the car chase where one car is 'trying to force us off the road' without actually making contact. Guess the budget didn't stretch to trashing cars. Oh and what looks like a Postcard of the Taj Mahal is shown every time they cut to the fictional foreign country.


Before we begin, I have a fear of dentists. This movie gives me the creeps and even makes me cringe. That is what I love about this film. The movie is kind of boring. For that, I take 3 stars off!

*Spoiler Alert*

The movie revolves around Dr. Alan Feinstone who has just found out his wife has been cheating on him. Soon, he begins to have hallucinations and begins torturing his patients, killing co-workers, and he has even tortured his wife to death and killed the man he was having an affair with.

*End Spoiler*

The movie is very bloody and gory. I would recommend it if you are into gore.

I give this film 7 stars out of 10. Dr. Alan Feinstein Is Not Your Normal Everyday Dentist!


Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her 'smash-hit one-woman show.'

There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her 'superstar summer,' to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back 'to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room.'

There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is 'Shashonna,' a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from 'Like a Virgin,' there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.

But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.

Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song 'Four Women' while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as 'my skin is black,' 'my hair is wooly,' and 'they call me Sweet Thing.'

She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: 'Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening.'

She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying 'Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!'

Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, 'I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!'

Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: 'When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real.'

Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, 'Eventually everyone will funk!'

All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.

In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.

If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.

But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend 'in the know' because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else.


Even if you know absolutely nothing about Ireland, you have to love 'My Left Foot' (and especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in it). He plays cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown. Due to this, he has spent most of his life ostracized. Even when trying to warn people about something, they just laugh at him. The light in the darkness for him is that he has control over one body part: his left foot. He uses that appendage to paint and write poetry, bringing him to prominence.

Daniel Day-Lewis and director Jim Sheridan did very well on this collaboration, and also on a later collaboration: 'In the Name of the Father' (but 'The Boxer' was unnecessary). 'My Left Foot' can make you feel many ways: sad, hopeful, or something else. But in any case, Daniel Day-Lewis gave the performance of a lifetime here. A great movie in every sense.


Very strange screenplay by Cameron Crowe (following on the heels of his 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High') has little inspiration and flails away at dumb gags. At least 'Fast Times' had a fair share of satire and sensitivity behind its slapstick (courtesy of a good director, Amy Heckerling, and Crowe's undeniable penchant for capturing letter-perfect teen-speak); here, Chris Penn (Sean's brother, natch) is the goof-off who makes life hell for straight arrow Eric Stoltz, and the filmmakers seem to think he's hilarious. Jenny Wright has some good moments as a mall-worker, but Illan Mitchell-Smith is lost in a head-scratching subplot about a teen who seems to be infatuated with a shell-shocked ex-soldier. Queasy, confused nonsense given a shiny sheen and a soundtrack full of pop-rock tunes, but characters one would hope to avoid. Supporting players Lea Thompson, Rick Moranis, Lee Ving, and Sherilyn Fenn are wasted in stupid roles. * from ****


In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described 'problem child' David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of 'Jack and the Beanstalk' (you guessed it).

The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's 'Spin and Marty'.

** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum


Like his elder brothers, Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Corneau began to cut his teeth in French cinema with a series of fine thrillers: 'la Menace' (1977) and 'Série Noire' (1979) among others. 'Police Python 357' is a good example of how Corneau conceived and shot his works at this time of his career. They had a splendid cinematography, painstaking screenplays and a sophisticated directing elaborated for efficiency's sake.

The police superintendent Ferrot (Yves Montand) is a cop with unconventional methods who usually works all alone. He makes the acquaintance of a young woman Sylvia Léopardi (Stefania Sandrelli) and becomes her lover while ignoring that she has another lover: his superior Ganay (François Périer). When the latter learns it, he kills her in a fit of anger. Ferrot has to investigate the murder and all the clues are inexorably against him...

One could deem that this kind of far-fetched story isn't exempt from glitches and sometimes, one can see right through it but Corneau's pedantic directorial style helps to conjure up a stifling, dusky atmosphere. The first part of the film before the night of the murder might seem uninteresting and however, it is crucial for what will follow this key-moment. Corneau falls back on a sober treatment with rather sparse moments and short appearances by secondary, minor characters whom the viewer will see again during the investigation. In spite of drawbacks, Corneau and his scenarist Daniel Boulanger penned a deft story. Ménard (Mathieu Carrière) who sometimes expresses his surprise because Ferrot keeps a relatively low profile during the investigation. But his superior knows that he usually works alone. Actually, Ferrot has to find solid tricks to muddy the waters and so to exonerate himself. Eventually, the chief idea of the film concerns Ferrot himself. He's a cop who bit by bit loses his identity and finds himself in the heart of a terrible depersonalization. It is epitomized by the moment when he throws himself acid on his face so that witnesses won't recognize him when he is brought face to face with them.

The backdrop of this thriller, Orléans is efficiently enhanced by Corneau's camera and helps to inspire this eerie thriller its pernicious charm.


Martin Lawrence could be considered a talented man, but those days are long gone. Runteldat shows a man who at once tries to play the sympathy card to his plight yet takes responsibility for it whenever he thinks it'll benefit his ego. The sad truth is that at this point in his life, his best days were behind him: his half-funny show was dead in the water after his co-star left and to today he faces a career of voice acting and god awful action films.

One gets the impression that this concert film wasn't made to give Lawrence's career another boost after his humiliation but rather a childish attempt to clear the air by both trying to pathetically salvage what remained of his life and somehow twist it into something to be proud of, some defining moment in which he showed himself to have 'earned' his fame. Sadly, the concert is nothing but a gravelly-voiced Martin incoherently trying to be funny, invoke pathos, and then claim he doesn't care about it at all because hardcore. The sad truth is that this is the real public embarrassment for Lawrence: the way he rambles on invoking sad pity laughter makes you wish that he would just strip down to his underwear on stage, wave a gun around, and just reenact it all over again. There is no real insight to his performance at all. Much like the childish title states, Martin is trying to make his ultimate moment of truth his own in his way and fails miserably. He would have been better off waiting for the E! True Hollywood Story instead of running on a stage and making an idiot out of himself for the second time.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this concert film--or rather, career eulogy--is that Martin didn't put any thought into this. What was this film supposed to prove? Sadly, that his fame was fleeting, he was a flash in the pan before the underwear incident, and now that the only way he can get work is piggybacking Will Smith or a Pixar production. They might as well called this concert 'Tombstone' because that's what it is. Martin Lawrence just dies on stage here, and with it goes what could have been an interesting career. Now? Just a pathetic side note in history.


I don't like Sean Penn's directing very much, and this early work, The Indian Runner, is no exception. The movie has no core, it's colored with a kind of redneck, anti-authoritarian tweeness that in all honesty taints most of Penn's work, his latest work even more so than the earlier. Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, the whole lot seem to produce such fundamentally banal product, ostensibly in some allegiance to honesty, but ending up being, for the most part, glorified pro wrestling matches, and moralistic, almost as if Hallmark cards had developed a line of Hell's Angels greetings, and make me long for the days of Deliverance, which is a fine movie. Viggo Mortensen's acting is much, much more believable here than that ridiculous Eastern Promises thing he did with Cronenberg, and that's about it. The movie is dead meaningless, and seems to be an exercise, a series of techniques, more than a story. Kudos for Charles Bronson, however, who proves he can act. And I wanted more of Sandy Dennis' character. A lousy 3 out of 10 for this The Indian Runner crap.


I've seen this movie more than once. It isn't the greatest scifi flick I've every seen, but it is not a bad movie. The acting is good and the characters are more 'real' than most in low budget sci fi. (At least it isn't full of dumb bimbos like so many other low budget scifi.) I especially like Elizabeth Pena. She is a good actress and she does worried single mother as well as any and better than some.

Don't let the nay sayers run you off. See it for yourself and judge it for yourself.


I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been 'American Masters', but it was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With 7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again.


At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.

On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.

Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.


I gave this movie such a high mark because it was really cute, really funny, all while being unpretentious. I went to see this film when it was playing in the Philly area, and it was the centerpiece of a great night out with friends. The film is well written and well acted, and though it does feel a bit like a sitcom rather then a movie, that doesn't take away from the film. You just don't find comedies like this anymore, where you don't have to shock people to be funny. The film centers around a Ukranian housekeeper that finds herself working for a young couple in need of help. Though at first she helps, soon she adds more craziness to their lives then the couple bargained for. Things get further and further out of control until....you'll have to see! The banter had me laughing, even after leaving the theater. This film just put me in a good mood. I can't wait until it is released on DVD because I want this movie in my collection.


After watching this movie, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and another film called America 3000. Both were very bad mid 1980's post apocalypse disasters on celluloid. Obviously fake sets, wooden acting and stupid monsters are found in both films. About the only difference between the two is that the lead villainess here (played by Angelika Jager) has a very thick accent. Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version. Joel and the bots barely salvage this turkey.


Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.

This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, 'Before Sunrise' never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans.


Jim Varney's performances as the Harem Girl and A.U. are amazingly funny--on a level surpassing Chaplin and Keaton. Linda Kash is great in her once-in-a-lifetime role as the hometown waffle waitress longing for adventure. Unfortunately, the remaining 90% of the movie was unwatchably bad due to the atrocious plot. The makers of Ernest Goes to Africa did not rise to the creative challenges inherent in low budget film production. Only worth seeing on cable.


The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too'real' for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.


Who likes awful 'comedy' shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.

CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.

When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for 'comedy' Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.


I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.

The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day.


In 1993, 'the visitors' was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made.

This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.

But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.

 Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.

A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?


Unfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.

Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his 'secret' to her! Riiiight!

He then 'gifts' his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.

One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark 'child in a grown-up's body' schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.

Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.

There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.

The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online 'friends' to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.

I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called 'friends' are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful movie!


I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!

The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun.

I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered.


Before I forget, let me say the artwork in here is outstanding. From garbage cans to the huge cruise ship, the drawings are beautifully done. If this wasn't animated, critics would be lauding the 'direction' in here, because it's really good.

To the story: Sylvester is picking through the garbage at the shipyards but the pickins' are slim. While brooding at the dock next to a big ship, in a porthole he spots Tweety in his cage. Tweety spots him, too, and you know his first comment - the same one he always makes when he spots the cat. Anyway, Sylvester runs over, opens the porthole and says, 'Hello, breakfast!' Tweety slams the porthole window on his face and says, 'You bad old peeping tomcat!' The cat falls into the water.

The undaunted Sylvester quickly sneaks back aboard ship, tiptoes into Tweety's cabin, grabs him and is ready to leave when - wham! - there's 'Granny' at the door with her umbrella. Sylvester takes a beating as the old lady protects her pet bird once again. But, 'flippety gibbet,' says Granny, 'I've dropped my glasses. I can't see a thing without 'em. Heavens to Betsey, where are those cheaters.'

Now Sylvester has the upper hand....and the normal cat-trying-to-catch-bird shenanigans are on again, like Granny's glasses. Sylvester's most clever act was to take her glasses and paint a picture of Tweety on them, so when she woke up and put them on, she'd see the bird and think it was okay.

Overall, a very entertaining animated short that was a lot of fun to watch. As you can tell by the quotes, I love the dialog in some of these old cartoons.


Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.

Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.

Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.

Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a 'Spooky Swap Ghost Tour' the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.

Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.

After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).

Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.

She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.

Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.

It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh?


Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.

The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances.

Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.

I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name 'Brotherly love'. 'Country dance' is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such.


Ever notice how in his later movies Burt Reynolds' laugh sounds like screeching brakes?

Must have been hanging out with Hal Needham too much.

And from the looks of 'Stroker Ace', WAY too much.

Can you believe this was based on a book? Neither could I, but it was. And probably not a best-seller, I'll wager.

Burt's another good-old-boy in the NASCAR circuit who hitches up with Beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. Anderson provides what love interest there is and Nabors does his umpteenth Gomer Pyle impression as faithful mechanic/best friend Lugs.

A lot of people here are friends of Burt's or Hal's. Others must have needed the work. And even real NASCAR drivers get in on the act, and look to have more talent than those with SAG cards.

As far as laughs go, Bubba Smith (pre-'Police Academy') gets them as Beatty's chauffeur. And Petersen, in full Elvira mode, gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know Lugs real well. REAL WELL.

It's a shame that Burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like 'Stroker Ace' where it didn't matter whether he bothered to act or not. They didn't bother to write a character for him, why bother to act?

Two stars. Mostly for Petersen, and for the out-takes at the end. Now THEY'RE funny.


This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.


Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan.


not a Larry Mcmurty masterpiece but it stands on its own as a good western, any of the lonesome doves do. who ever takes on the role of Woodrow call, does a great portrayal in their own style. It's also easy to see that they were looking to use this as a stepping stone to the t.V series (both version of it) and that the writers knew how to keep the flavor alive William Peterson was awesome in this, the geeky C.S.I guy is not the character he plays in this - this guy can do it all it seems

it's deserve to be enjoyed by those who enjoy westerns

4out5 stars


This is a really amazing story and the most amazing part of it all is that it REALLY happend! In case you haven't noticed: it's based on a true story.

(Possible spoiler)

Imagine the shock and horror of discovering that your own father was once a SS officer in WW II.

It's a very intriguing story and I'm really surprised the movie is rated a lousy 5.3 here on imdb.com.

my rate: 7


THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!

This movie is like a 'bad acid trip' for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me 'Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth' or 'Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?'. (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).


'Tenchi Muyo In Love 2' is the third Tenchi movie. It seemed that its creators took elements from the first two to make this one. At the risk of giving out spoilers, Tenchi is kidnapped and the team has to get him back. Nothing new there. A past love of Yosho's is the bad guy. That was done in the second movie. The battle between Aeka and Ryoko and is starting to get boring. The movie has almost no action scenes in it and very little comedy. I personally don't know what AIC, it's makers, were thinking. I gave this movie a vote of 4.


I like to like movies, but I found nothing to like about The Box. I was interested in the 'hook' of the plot, but unfortunately it never went anywhere and was impossible to follow. Anyone who states that they understand this movie is probably faking it so that they can feel like they are a part of something, well I have news for them, the emperor has no clothes.

The only undertone in this movie is that women are to blame for original sin, and corrupting mankind. I've heard that story before, and it makes less and less sense every time. It's true that this movie is different than a lot of films currently showing in theatres, but that doesn't make it worth the ticket price.


The Nun is a revenge picture whereby a very strict nun is killed by her rebellious trailer trash charges and comes back years later to get even when the now adults visit their old school. Story line is predictable in spades and will hold no surprises as it slowly winds its way to the end. It is a screamer of a movie with passable acting and a below average script and screenplay. Much of the special effects are low grade and there is almost zero believability in the final battle. Still, if you look past these there is some suspense and acting jewels. If you like senseless cookie cutter screamers, you'll like this, otherwise you should pass.


The only thing worse than surfers without any waves is a film about surfers without any waves. For viewers who love surfing this film will be a gigantic disappointment since the total number of minutes of surfing footage struggles to reach three.

The story is a slice of life about beached surfers who are waiting not for the perfect wave, but for any wave at all. J.C. (Sean Pertwee) is an aging super surfer who is flirting with a commitment with his girlfriend Chloe (Catherine Zeta Jones). Just as he is about to find grown up bliss with the woman he loves, three old surfing friends turn up and convince him to hit the beach looking for monster waves at the Bone Yard. The trouble is, there are no waves until the very end of the film, so most of the story dissipates itself on a meandering succession of disconnected beach happenings.

The acting is mostly mediocre. Sean Pertwee has a few comical moments, but mostly his acting was mundane. Ewan McGregor was decent as the drug dealing wild man, by far the most interesting and peculiar character of the bunch. Probably the funniest performance was turned in by Peter Gunn as Terry who turned his corpulent body into a continual sight gag. Catherine Zeta-Jones was sexy as usual, but her character didn't really have enough meat for her to show much acting ability.

There is really not much here on which to comment. I rated it a 3/10. It's a real beach bummer.


This film is a wonderful movie based on the life of a man called Grey Owl in 1930s Canada. I found it to be similarly riveting and heartfelt as 'Rudy' and 'Awakenings'. It picks up late in Grey Owl's life and follows him through his most tumultuous and influential period.

The film is about a Canadian Indian trapper who finds himself promoting the plight of the over-trapped Beaver. He also predicts the decrease in natural lands and the overuse of Earth's resources. This is an outrageous concept in the 1930s and surprisingly well received. He becomes a well known speaker and the masses are ready to listen.

The casting of Pierce Brosnan seems rather odd, but is not outrageous. Anyone wanting to argue that point must first watch the movie to understand. Brosnan provides a wonderful performance as does Annie Galipeau. Galipeau is a strong actress whose place beside Brosnan is refreshingly natural compared to the forced pairings in recent Bond films.

I would recommend this film to anyone interested in good drama, beautiful scenery, or environmental causes. It is a movie for families as well, however children under 10 (depending on maturity) would have trouble following the plot.


Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!

How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!

At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!


Ernst Lubitsch's contribution to the American cinema is enormous. His legacy is an outstanding group of movies that will live forever, as is the case with 'The Shop Around the Corner'. This film has been remade into other less distinguished movies and a musical play, without the charm or elegance of Mr. Lubitsch's own, and definite version.

Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart worked in several films together. Their characters in this movie stand out as an example of how to be in a movie without almost appearing to be acting at all. Both stars are delightful as the pen pals that don't know of one another, but who fate had them working together in the same shop in Budapest.

The reason why these classic films worked so well is the amazing supporting casts the studios put together in picture after picture. In here, we have the wonderful Frank Morgan, playing the owner of the shop. Also, we see Joseph Schildkraut, Felix Bressart, William Tracy and Charles Smith, among others, doing impressive work in making us believe that yes, they are in Budapest.

That is why these films will live forever!


Convoluted, infuriating and implausible, Fay Grim is hard to sit through but Parker Posey is really the only actress who could take this story and run with it. She's at once touching,funny, cunning. The supporting actors commit to it as well.

I wont even try to tell you the plot.. It involves characters from Hartley's Henry Fool and attempts a tale of international espionage.

The film works well if you continue along with it-understanding it is. in a sense, completely ridiculous. It becomes more and more ridiculous as you plod along. (I resisted the temptation to turn off the DVD twice).

Fay Grim requires an adventurous film-goer willing to tackle something that isn't cookie-cutter. In the end, it offers something that defies description.


THE VAN is a simple teensploitation picture made especially for the drive in that goes out of it's way to make you feel comfortable, providing many opportunities to laugh and cry with your friends. Danny Devito has a small yet plentiful role as the manager of a car wash and almost steals the show! All the leads are well acted, the characters complex and the directing quite competent for this type of picture. A Crown International Release.


Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.

But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.

Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility.


I first saw 'The Knowledge' during a Thames Television marathon on one of the local independent stations in Los Angeles back when it was new. I enjoyed it very much along with danger UXB.

That a movie I saw once over twenty year ago should stick so well in my memory is a testament to it's originality and the quality of the performances by the cast.

I looked for a DVD copy here in the U.S.A. And found none. I finally gambled and bought a UK DVD off Ebay and was delighted to find that it has no Region Code. So those of us that would like to see this little gem can get a copy.