Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say 'I love you' first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.

One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of 'Bent'. We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.

Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and 'Friends'. Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting 'blowed up' as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in 'Friends'.

This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch.


This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says 'from the director of the boogeyman' so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what 'boogeyman' they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.

ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name 'Zodiac Killer', and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the 'stories' about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to 'Vampire of Dusseldorf' Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's 'son' quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says 'Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's'...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. 'Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!'

Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. 'I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered', etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.

Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.

...Oh, and I liked how the killer 'tear gassed' a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...


Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of 'putting together a show'. Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often 'Stepping Out' feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic 'Tentacles', and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of 'Queer Duck: The Movie'.


Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.

The movie is quite cliche '1970's' and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.

The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.

If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...


As a fan of Dan Aykroyd, I watched this film when it was recently shown in the middle of night on TV. I wasn't expecting much, so it came as a big surprise that I loved it so much.

This is the type of film that Dan Aykroyd seems to love to make. A chance for him to 'ham it up' and not take things too seriously. If you loved him in The Blues Brothers or Ghostbusters you'll know what I mean, and you'd be wise to check out The Couch Trip.

Avid fans of Aykroyd will also have fun spotting all the tiny links to his other films in the script!

I can't describe this film without spoiling it for you, so all I can do is tell you to check it out. I can't praise this film highly enough, and it must surely be time for a DVD release!!


In New York, when the shy and lonely project manager of a design firm Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) meets Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) in the subway, he invites her to date and have dinner with him. Jenny immediately falls in love for him, they have sex and she discloses her true identity to him, telling that she is the powerful superhero G-Girl. After meeting his co-worker and friend Hannah Lewis (Anna Faris), the needy Jenny becomes jealous, controlling and manipulative, and Matt follows the advice of his best friend Vaughn Haige (Rainn Wilson) and dumps her, breaking her heart. Jenny turns Matt's life into hell, while he has a romance with Hannah. However, the archenemy of G-Girl and former high school sweetheart of Jenny, Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), proposes Matt to lure Jenny to strip her superpowers.

'My Super Ex-Girlfriend' is delightfully silly and funny. This romantic comedy-adventure has many hilarious moments and is very entertaining. Luke Wilson is great in the role of an idiot, Anna Farris is extremely sexy as usual, and Uma Thurman is great in the role of a deranged neurotic superhero that recalls Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction' or Evelyn Draper in 'Play Misty For Me'. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): 'Minha Super Ex-Namorada' ('My Super Ex-Girlfriend')


Typical 90's comedy, situational comedy similar to our modern day 'My Family'. Thatcher being the height of most political jokes, Bill (Belinda Lang) blames Thatcher for anything she can. 'Bloody Thatcher' possibly shared with most of us. David the typical teenager, cutting up brains with bread knives, Jenny, the moody older teenage child, only interested in boys and more boys. Bill and Ben working as much as they can to keep their family afloat struggling within the economical climate of the early 90's. Granted the first two series were not as successful as the latter however, series 3 onwards is where it all kicks off with more laughs that i care to count. overall this show didn't get the best viewing times and they ought to have held on a bit longer. clearly they couldn't have carried on after Gary Olsen died but i think they should get rid of 'catherine Tate' 'the office' 'little Britain' and bring back the classics!


I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned!


This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out.


This is not a good movie. It is a tried remake of the English movie 'The Hitch'. But it insults the original one. This is hardly a movie you expect from a veteran director like 'David Dhawan' who is credited to directing good movies like 'Raja Babu', 'Coolie No.1', 'Hero No. 1'...

The main theme for this movie is taken from 'The Hitch' with some changes so as to appeal to the Indian audience but somehow the story and the screenplay is not convincing enough. Plus the acting from the lead roles i.e. Salman Khan and Govinda is pitiful. It seems that they need the slightest provocation to remove their shirts to reveal their bare chest. I do not consider this fascinating and least of all comic. What was the director thinking ? Added to this the viewers have to bear the case of Govinda's Over-acting. It was simply unbearable. I ADVISE THE VIEWERS TO WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. My rating of 2 for this movie could be considered to be a very generous one.

Instead I would advise the viewers to watch the English movie 'Hitch' which is a lot better.


Strange but acceptable mob comedy that has an undercover FBI agent (Matthew Modine) flirting with a mobster's concerned widow (Michelle Pfeffier) to tie two murders on a elusive mob boss (Dean Stockwell).

The movie shows that it doesn't have to go over the top just to be funny and director Jonathan Demme ('The Silence of the Lambs', 'Philadelphia') keeps the movie from looking like it being was restrained. That's good and it avoids being predictiable, too.


Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already  the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.

Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath  gang up on her, why don't you?

The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.

oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera  this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography.


Anthony Minghella's 'The English Patient' is a film that takes us back to the golden years of Hollywood. It is grand and impressive in scale, and yet so heartbreakingly intimate in its portrayal of human love and suffering. At the 1997 Academy Awards, the film owned the night, taking home nine awards from twelve nominations, the most decisive cleansweep since Bernardo Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' in 1988. Based on Canadian author Michael Ondaatje's 1992 Booker Prize-winning novel of the same name, 'The English Patient' is a touching meditation on life, love and loss, tracing the history of a critically-burnt man in the aftermath of World War Two.

During the war, a man (Ralph Fiennes) is discovered in the burning remnants of a crashed plane. With his face scarred beyond recognition, and with the man seemingly suffering from amnesia, he is assumed to be an Allied soldier, and is simply referred to as 'the English patient.' After the war, in the mine-ridden hills of Italy, a kind nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), who has apparently lost everybody close to her, remains in a ruined monastery to look after the dying man. Over time, she comes to learn more and more about her 'English patient,' who is actually revealed to be a Hungarian geographer, Count Laszlo de Almásy. Rather than losing his memory in the plane crash, we learn that this scar-ridden man has perhaps chosen to forget his past, both to protect himself from persecution and to cure himself of the tragic memories of his past love. Via numerous flashbacks, we learn of Almásy's former exploits in the Sahara desert, and his romantic liaison with a married woman, Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas).

It's certainly easy to see why 'The English Patient' was so successful at the Oscars. It is such a beautiful film, blending the quiet beauty of the Italian countryside with the endless golden sands of the desert. Cinematographer John Seale captures the landscape to perfection; not since David Lean's magnificent 'Lawrence of Arabia' has a film shown the desert with such beauty and grandeur, making particularly good use of sweeping aerial shots from Almásy's plane. Even in the film's more intimate moments, excellent use of close-ups and lighting capture the emotion of the scene, coupled, of course, with the brilliant performances from all the cast members.

A long-time favourite actor of mine, 'The English Patient' might just contain Ralph Fiennes' finest performance, and, considering his history includes such films as 'Schindler's List' and 'The Constant Gardener,' this is not a complement that is to be taken lightly. His Count Laszlo de Almásy is initially a very sympathetic character, but, as we slowly learn more about his past, his likable qualities are eroded by his less-admirable tendencies towards others. 'Ownership' is a major theme of the film. When asked by Katherine what he hates most, Almásy replies with 'Ownership. Being owned. When you leave you should forget me.' However, as the relationship progresses, and Katherine perhaps tries to distance herself from him, Almásy reveals a hint of arrogance, insisting that his love for her somehow entitles him to have her whenever he likes: 'I want to touch you. I want the things which are mine, which belong to me.'

Juliette Binoche, who received an Oscar for her performance here, is excellent as Hana, the lonesome nurse who fears to love because of the tragedies that have always harmed those close to her. After some time of caring for Almásy alone, she is joined by a dubious Canadian thief, David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who lost his thumbs during the war, and who suspects that it was Almásy who betrayed him to the Germans. Hana also strikes up a tentative romantic relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews), an Indian bomb-diffuser in the British Army. However, due to her past history, Hana is afraid that becoming involved with Kip will doom him to death, particularly considering his very dangerous line of work.

At 160 minutes in length, 'The English Patient' wonderfully evokes memories of the classic romantic epics of old, successfully finding a balance of mystery, love, joy and tragedy. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and sorrowful, but also uplifting in its own way. Whilst some romantic relationships are doomed from the very beginning, others have a very good chance of bringing happiness. Nevertheless, in every case, it is always better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.


This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.


Nicolas Mallet is a failure. A teller in a bank, everyone walks all over him. Then his friend, a writer who's books no one likes, has a plan to change his life. Our hero tells his boss he is quitting. He intends to spend the rest of his life making a great deal of money and sleeping with a great many women. And he manages to do just that.

If it were not for the amount of death (murder/suicide/natural causes) in the film, this would be a farce. There are numerous jabs at marriage, politics, journalism and...life.

Jean-Louis Trintignant is a likable amoral rogue. Romy Schneider is at her most appealing. Definitely worth a look.


This ensemble piece about adults who return to the formulative Summer camp of their youth was a very quiet entrant and exiter to the cinemas in the Autumn of 1993. I'd say that was a shame,but then again,some of the better movies ARE quiet releases that don't get much hype or praise.

Diane LAne,Kevin Pollack,Elizabeth Perkins,Vincent Spano,Julie Warner,Bill Paxton,Kimberly Williams,Matt Craven and Alan Arkin(who is painfully good here) are the group of actors who flesh out these roles as people who have grown old with good,bad and funny memories of summers gone past. This film covers the gambit of emotions,mostly pleasant,and the film never hammers away at the viewer to feel what the characters are feeling,preferring to allow the viewer to enter into the memories on their own. Since I am a movie viewer who bristles at bluntly,brazen manipulation in films,this is something that I appreciate from writer/director Mike Binder.

This film's a great cheap rent,a good main rent and even a pretty sit in a theater flick. You might run across this on TV,and I would definitely suggest a look-see.


I first discovered Alexander Korda's (1940) Fantasy, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD in the early 1950's on a re-issue billed as 'The Wonder Show of the Century!' Both Korda Technicolor films, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and JUNGLE BOOK were shown on one never to be forgotten program. The music of Miklos Rozsa enhanced both films. The Technicolor in each was incredibly beautiful! THE THIEF OF BAGDAD has remained on my list as the best fantasy film ever made. As the years passed, it became more difficult to enjoy the film's color in the way it had originally been presented in. True Technicolor gave way to a Eastman Color process in the middle 1950's. Both Kino and Samuel Goldwyn reissued the film both theatrically and on video. But the Eastman Color prints were more pastel in nature and muted the vibrancy of the original Technicolor. The Laser Disc release of this title also has the pastel look to it -- nice, but not as it should be. NOW comes the M-G-M DVD (3 Dec 2002) issue. THE THIEF OF BAGDAD again has the wonderful Technicolor look to it on a DVD that is nothing short of STUNNING!!! It was so exciting to see it like this once again that after viewing the DVD once, I watched it a second time. The only 'Extras' are a Spanish Dubbed version, Sub-Titles in both English & Spanish, and a beautifully done original theatrical trailer. Thank you M-G-M for this EXCEPTIONAL DVD release. Now, one can only hope that Korda's FOUR FEATHERS and a restored version of Korda's JUNGLE BOOK (to replace to poor public domain prints in circulation) will soon follow on DVD.


Well I don't know much about anything, but I sure liked this film. In short, it was creative, humorous, simple, and heartwarming. In other words, it was everything it set out to be.

The story is set around a girl's first love, (as the title suggests) and I certainly should warn you: expect nothing challenging or provocative in terms of the subject matter here. I mean, it is a children's cartoon. It's really just a simple story, but it's told well, and it holds your attention well.

In the end: it's short, it's funny, it's cute, it's simple, it's good.


One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this 'charming' film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.

This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.

From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing 'I Don't Care' while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.

This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.

Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.


Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.

Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future!


I haven't always been a fan, but the show grew on me. It wasn't until after season 5 that I started to see the richness of the show. They finally brought Daniel Jackson's search for his wife to an end and finally most of the Go,ould System Lords were killed by rival Lords, SG-1 or others.

Towards Season 5, Stargate SG-1, was beginning to become stale. With the new writers and the close attention by Produer Peter Deleuise, the show became more and more solid.

The characters had become stale as well. Colonel Jack O'Neill was the stereotypical hero with emotional baggage. After his son Charlie was killed in a shooting accident with O'Neill's weapon, he had decided to end his own life by going to Abydos in order to face off with the Go'ould RA. The character offers little growth for any actor and actor Richard Dean Anderson chose to play him straight raising emotional barriers to protect himself. only allowing his close friends in.

Amanda Tapping joined the cast as Captain Samantha Carter. She was a feminist on the edge, ready to battle any man who would doubt her ability to do her job. Though this character had little area to grow, Tapping has done a great job of concentrating on Carter's strengths. She has taken the time to get a basic understanding of some of the things Carter talks about in order that she can present the character intelligently.

Christopher Judge joined the cast playing the alien Teal'c. Teal'c was an alien called the Jaffa. Infant Go'ould, (snake like creatures) would embed themselves into the Jaffa until they had grown to the point when it would be inserted into another life form. The Jaffa would die. Teal'c was the First Prime of Apophis' army. Knowing that Apophis was not a god like Go'ould pretend, he realized the genocide that their armies had wreaked on the galaxy. Finally, having had enough, he and Jack O'Neill freed their team along with quite a few innocent people. After arriving on Earth, he realized that Earth was the planet he was looking for, who would help him fight the Go'ould. Christopher Judge has done quite a bit with a limited character. Teal'c is a wise warrior, much of which he learned was from his teacher Master Bra'tac. The show would not be complete without Master Bra'tac played by Tony Amandola. He is also a rock. In the end, he became adviser to most of SG-1, especially Daniel Jackson.

Don S. Davil was there from the beginning playing Major General George Hammand. Davis has done an incredible job with Hammond making him sympathetic and normal. He does his job, has a wife, sons and daughters and grandchildren. You can really say, he is the anchor of the base. Simply, I would die for that man. If not allowed by his superiors to provide troops to support teams off world. He will go himself. He doesn't leave anyone behind.

I saved Dr. Daniel Jackson for last, because this character, I believe has grown the most in the ten or eleven years it has been on. In choosing Shanks I don't think the producer realized how strong Shanks would be and now when people talk about Jackson, they don't talk about Spader, they talk about Shanks. In the early years, the Jackson character came off as a whiner. That's why I probably wasn't a fan. As the seasons pasted, the character became stronger. This gave him confidence. In the end, as of season 10, the Jackson character has matured to the point that he has become a self sacrificing hero. He still monitors the groups ethics. He still is lead at providing information that can move any mission forward. Acheaology, History, Culture and Exploration are part of his very being. He is determined. Though a man of peace, he has matured to the point that using his weapons may be the only way to solve a disagreement.

Other characters include, most recently: Vala Mal Doran(Claudia Black) and Colonel Cameron Mitchell(Ben Browder), new lead of SG-1. Both actors come from a series called Farscape and why they were put together is any bodies guess. I see little difference between Mitchell and Crichton (Farscape character). Black's character is simply off the wall. Definitely different from her soldier like character Arin Soon.


I just discovered this obscure '70s horror movie while browsing on YouTube. For a low-budget effort, it has plenty of compelling moments in gradual pacing in leading to the surprisingly shocking finish. While there is one woman who takes off her shirt constantly, the fact that she's a nymphomaniac makes those scenes important to the story and there's one scene with the curly-haired young man as he attempts to seduce her that turned me on before his pulling back made her screaming mad. The young nurse who comes in and gets hired is alluring herself and I'm not surprised she posed for the cover of Playboy. Some characters are very irritating and some scenes do seem ridiculous. For the most part, however, Don't Look in the Basement (That's the title I saw on YouTube) provides enough drama and chills for an entertaining B-movie.


Before watching this film I had very low expectations and went to just see the cars. Eventually I even regretted going for that reason. Plot is almost non-existent. Character development is non-existent. So many clichés and so much jaw-dropping cheesiness existed in the movie that I could only stare and wonder how it was even released. If not for the exotics, I wouldn't have even rated this movie a 1. An attempt at a coherent story line is destroyed by the sheer absurdity of this elite racing cult and the laughable characters that make up its members. In fact, the movie's plot is so predictable and simple-minded that an average child could foretell the majority of the storyline. Bad acting, bad plot, bad jokes, bad movie.

Don't see it. Play Gran Turismo HD instead and it'll satiate your thirst for fast sexy cars without leaving a bad aftertaste.


Perfect cast for a few-person drama. Simon is dead but somehow resurrects from outside. What he had seen there is displayed in form of blank spots orchestrated to a magnificent score by German avant-garde composer Werner Henze. Simon is haunted by his death, comforted by support of death people he'd seen on the other side. His girlfriend tries to hold him to life but failing to, decides to follow him after his finally occurring death. Very touchy and moving, deeply psychological, but a bit slow and somewhere even boring.


If this movie proves only one thing, it's that Keaton is, was and always will be a comic at heart, even when dodging bullets, heading for the electric chair and getting at the wrong end of an information line in prison.

But 'Johnny Dangerously' goes on to prove even more. In the '80s, the ZAZ boys (Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker) were the pinnacle in the world of genre spoofs. But there were several pretenders to the throne. This time, Amy ('Fast Times at Ridgement High') Heckerling tries her hand, with an amazing amount of television writers behind the script (go and check).

This slap-happy slapstick spoof of the 1930's cops-and-'gag'sters movies throws just about every cliche for a loop and even adds a few cliches that didn't exist way back when.

And not only is the ever-dependable Keaton on hand as the Johnny of the title, but so are such funny guys and dolls as Piscopo, Henner, Stapleton, Boyle, Dunne, DeVito, Walston and just about every other actor in Hollywood that happened to walk into the immediate vicinity. You'd be surprised by how many faces you'll recognize. I know I was.

And the jokes? Well, when they start out, they come at you fast and furious, like a machine gun. There are too many to count in the beginning, topped off with a crazy theme song by Weird Al Yankovic. But you have to watch for when they reload. And they have to reload a little too often.

Everyone tries, they seem to be having fun and I was laughing a good amount of the time. In the end, though, there was plenty of time to think about how certain scenes could have been funnier - not usually the best thing to think about after watching a comedy.

But for a slow night when there's nothing good on TV, pop in 'Johnny' and be ready for some 'Dangerously' serious laughter.

Eight stars. Check out 'Johnny Dangerously'... don't be a 'bastidge'.


I saw that this movie was coming out and could not wait to see it. I have to say I was very disappointed with it. This would have been better as a mini-series. The whole show seemed very rushed. They did not explain things very clearly. At the end they showed John Paul II, alive and well and the next scene he was dead. Never any explanation as to what happened. (We all know what happened in real life) I think ABC dropped the ball big time on something that could have been great. In all I think this movie was a blur. It seemed like a drunken monkey jumping around from one point in John Paul's life to another point never explaining how or why things happened. Such as when his older brother leaves, it was never explained that his brother was a doctor and that is why he left home. Also when his father dies, all we see is his father lying on the floor and that was that. I was very disappointed with the over all movie.


Nurse Betty is really an interesting movie. I guess we all know someone who is so convinced that the characters in a soap opera are real, that you can't explain them with any means that these are just actors and not real persons.

'Nurse Betty' isn't a nurse at all. In real life she is an ordinary housewife who works at a diner. To escape from her awful husband and the problems in her miserable life, she has become a very dedicated fan of a soap opera. After she witnessed her husband being murdered, she goes into some kind of a shock and she loses all grip on reality. She thinks she's in love with one of the characters from the soap opera, a doctor, and decides that she'll visit him and start a family with him. The hit men however think that she knows too much and go after her to kill her.

As I already said, the subject is quite recognizable (if you leave the professional hit men and the murder out of it) and the movie was funny. The story was well directed and the actors did a fine job. It had everything I always want to see when watching a comedy. I give it a 7.5/10.


Oh boy! I really trashed Manhunt in Space. I think this flopper deservedly rates worse than Manhunt. It goes nowhere and fungi growth was more exciting than this tripe.

Poor Cleolanta. She's so misunderstood. Smug Rocky struts around and thankfully, there's no mention from Winky about his 'gay nightlife'. There's a lot more talking, a really awful (to watch) space marriage on the rocks, and crappy space effects cut-outs. Then, there's Bobby. You decide who's more annoying: Bobby or the Winkster? Personally, I'd jettison them out of an airlock into a black hole not before first subjecting them to killer flesh eating alien mutants.

At least there's Vena. She's just a cosmic girl!


This murder mystery with musical numbers is long on atmosphere and character but rather short on suspense and plausibility. Based on a stage play by Broadway showman Earl Carroll and others, it combines a whodunit plot with a backstage ambiance (a homicide investigation takes place on opening night at the theatre where a musical revue is being staged).

The cast is impressive and varied: tough-goofy Victor McLaglen as the police officer who leads the investigation and never fails to leer idiotically at whatever showgirl happens to be in sight; Jack Oakie (the prewar Jack Lemmon  or was Jack Lemmon the postwar Jack Oakie?) as the harassed director who must coordinate the staged performance as well as the chaos behind the scenes; the ever-homely Jessie Ralph as a wardrobe mistress with deep, dark secrets; Dorothy Stickney, who has a stunning close-up monologue near the end, as the tremulous maid madly in love with the male lead; Carl Brisson, the Danish star, as that very male lead, warbling the classic 'Cocktails for Two' not once but twice; Kitty Carlisle, operatically delivering 'Where Do They Come from and Where Do They Go' and other Johnston-Coslow songs; the glorious Gertrude Michael, who parted from us too soon, as a mean-spirited showgirl whose love for Brisson is spurned; the usually ridiculous Toby Wing who here at least is the center of a laugh-getting running joke.

When the plot complications get out of hand there is always an interesting performer or fun and tuneful musical number to distract the viewer. The film's most celebrated sequence is the 'Marahuana' number, led by Michaels, but aside from its controversial history, it's really one of the lesser musical offerings. All of the songs here are staged as if they could actually have fit into a standard proscenium theatre space, as opposed to the cinematic fantasy setup of the Busby Berkeley style.


One of the best movie-dramas I have ever seen. We do a lot of acting in the church and this is one that can be used as a resource that highlights all the good things that actors can do in their work. I highly recommend this one, especially for those who have an interest in acting, as a 'must see.' There are several scenes of note. For one, the graveyard scene when Hamlet encounters Yorick (everyone knows about THAT scene by just going to elementary school), and his interaction with the skull was extremely well done. The logic used in this scene was tremendous--I suppose a testament to Shakespeare more than anything else. For a second, I very much enjoyed the scene where Hamlet, Horatio and the character played by Robin Williams discussed the upcoming duel.


Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this 'documentary' is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a 'Modern Cannibal Tale.' I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.

Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had 'a small piece.' That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie 'The Life Of A True Don Juan' only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played 'just the tip.' Unbelievable.

The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.

Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.

The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because 'Keep The River To Your Right' is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.


The British production company Amicus is generally known as the specialist for horror anthologies, and this great omnibus called 'The House That Dripped Blood' is doubtlessly the finest Amicus production I've seen so far (admittedly, there are quite a few that I have yet to see, though). 'The House That Dripped Blood' consists of four delightfully macabre tales, all set in the same eerie mansion. These four stories are brought to you in a wonderfully Gothic atmosphere, and with one of the finest ensemble casts imaginable. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee (Cushing and Lee are two of my favorite actors ever), as well as Denholm Elliott and the ravishing Ingrid Pitt star in this film - so which true Horror fan could possibly afford to miss it? No one, of course, and the film has much more to offer than just a great cast. 'The House That Dripped Blood' revolves around an eerie rural mansion, in which strange things are happening. In four parts, the film tells the tales of four different heirs.

The first tale, 'Method For Murder', tells the story of Horror novelist Charles Hyller (Denholm Elliott), who moves into the House with his wife. After moving in, the writer suddenly feels haunted by a maniac of his own creation... The first segment is a great kickoff to the film. The story is creepy and macabre throughout and the performances are entirelly very good.

In the second story, 'Waxworks', retired businessman Phillip Grayson (Peter Cushing) moves into the house, and suddenly feels drawn to a mysterious Wax Museum in the nearby town... The great Peter Cushing once again delivers a sublime performance in this, and the rest of the performances are also very good. The tale is delightfully weird, and the second-best of the film, after the third.

The third tale, 'Sweets To The Sweet' is by far the creepiest and most brilliant of the four. John Reed (Christopher Lee) moves in with his little daughter. The private teacher and nanny Mrs. Norton, whom Mr. Reed has employed to instruct his daughter, is appalled about her employer's strictness towards his daughter, and is eager to find out what reason the overprotective father's views on upbringing may have... This best segment maintains a very creepy atmosphere and a genuinely scary plot. Christopher Lee is, as always, superb in his role. Nyree Dawn Porter is also very good as the nanny, and my special praise goes to then 11-year-old Chloe Franks. This ingenious segment alone makes the film a must-see for every true Horror-fan.

In the fourth segment, Horror-actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee) moves into the house with his sexy mistress/co-star Carla (Ingrid Pitt). This fourth story is satire, more than it is actually Horror. It is a highly amusing satire, however, and there are many allusions to other Horror films. At one point Henderson indirectly refers to Christopher Lee, who stars in the previous, third segment...

All four segments have a delightfully macabre sense of humor and a great atmosphere. As stated above, the third segment is by far the creepiest and greatest, but the other three are also atmospheric and often macabrely humorous Horror tales that every Horror lover should appreciate. An igenious atmosphere, a macabre sense of humor, genuine eerieness and a brilliant cast make this one a must-see. In Short: 'The House That Dripped Blood' is an excellent Horror-omnibus that no lover of British Horror could possibly afford to miss. Highly Recommended!


The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.


Harrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.


the author of the book, by the same title, should not have let her name be used for this movie. if you have read the book, this movie takes such a liberal interpretation of the actual events in the book and its spirit that the movie and book seem to have quite little in common except the title and some superficial details. the movie adds nothing, in terms of artistic merit, to the book's own literary achievement.

for those who have not read the book: you will also be disappointed. not only does the plot move at an incredibly slow pace, it doesn't offer anything more while it is moving slowly (like character development, for example). some viewers might be entertained by some of the graphic lesbian love scenes later on in the movie, but you might as well watch a showtime special for the stuff they show in therese and isabelle--its fairly tame and not imaginative at all.


Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10


There have been several books that have cited this as the earliest gay cinema. I don't really see this as all that gay in the homosexual sense but then seeing two men dancing in what has to be the worlds first movie musical does have its attraction.

There have been several earlier comments about this film dismissing any homosexual overtones. As to those that are quick to dismiss this film as just being silly and an experiment done late at night after too many drinks... Well I've heard that story before.

This film is of interest as an oddity and if folks want to consider it the first gay film so be it. Better this than the depressing 1919 Anders als die Andern.


I don't know what it is with these Brady kids. First, Barry Williams publicly brags about having sexy with his TV sister, Maureen McCormick, then about dating his TV mom, Florence Hederson. Then, Susan (Cindy) Olsen does music for a bunch of porno movies. Then Mike (Bobby) Lookinland gets in trouble for drunk driving. Finally, Maureen (Marcia) McCormick and Eve (Jan) Plum might have had a little same-sex fling on the side. Now, Christopher (Peter) Knight is pursued by a beautiful young model in her early-20s during his stint on 'The Surreal Life', which at first was fun to watch, and now they are married and in a very volatile and hostile relationship. The last episode, where she posed for a bunch of nude photographs with another naked girl for a scrapbook to give to Christopher for his birthday, was not a good move on her part. And he dealt with it in a very mature fashion, just picking up and leaving to clear his head. I think he was always bowing to her every need and now he's finally taking a stand. And I hate to say it, but I think she abuses him, verbally. The way she was torturing him for an engagement ring and the way she reams him for every little thing. Also she talks openly about having flings with other women and it is obvious she still sleeps around on him with women and men, which is not something any self-respecting human being should do when already married to someone. If this were a man talking down to his wife like that, and going out every night partying and having sex with other people, everyone would be rallying behind the wife to leave him. Why should this be any different. What started out as a cute little crush on another reality show blossomed into a huge disaster. Adrianne, as beautiful as she is, is like another Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, clearly in need of some therapy because she cries like a baby over so many silly things. I feel sorry for her, but Chris needs to rid himself of her, because he is a good man who cannot afford to be humiliated like this.


I found this movie to be charming. I thought the characters were developed since as I watched, I found myself caring about these people. This is a period piece that I believe took place during the depression. A single mother, who is known as the town recluse (she has reason to be), puts an ad in the paper for 'a Husband'. Christopher Reeve plays a ex-con who happens into town looking for work. He sees the ad and he goes out to see her. She hires him. I really had some chuckles as their relationship progresses because I found it easy to put myself in their shoes. Everything went on so matter of fact. He needs the work so he doesn't want to upset her. And she needing his help, but doesn't want him to get the upper hand. They dance around the fact that they begin to really need each other. Things start warming up until ......the big blowup. I won't spoil it by telling you what happens. But the point of resolution is perfectly wonderful. I found the story to be very believable for the time it's taking place. I think this is one of the better 'relationship' stories out there. Maybe the younger generation won't 'get it' but if you are over 40 I think you'll like it. And if you liked Christopher Reeve in 'Somewhere in Time' you'll like him in this one also.


If like me, you enjoyed the first film 'Bruce Almighty', my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.

Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to 'Change the World' with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.

Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.

It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.

Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down 'Night at the Museum' as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.

I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production.


I can see why this film was Oscar-nominated for Best Live Action Short, as it was constructed masterfully. Even if you don't particularly like the Blues (though to me, this sounded much more like jazz), you can easily appreciate this film. It is simply very well made, though for the life of me, I can't see why director Gjon Mili only got to direct one film--this one. In other words, the film is nominated and yet the director didn't get any sort of career boost. As for the black performers, I could understand this not causing their careers to shift into high gear, as unfortunately most of white society have indifference (or worse) for blacks or 'that kind of music'.

If you do watch this film, if you aren't particularly enjoying the earlier portion, skip ahead to about the 5:50 mark--where it picks up considerably. When the lady stopped singing and the performers began to improvise, the pace improved quite a bit.


I am a fan of the previous Best of the Best films. But this one was awful. No wonder I had such a hard time finding it. I tried 4 video rental stores, until I found one with a copy of this movie. The acting was terrible, the plot was a joke, and the action was bad as well.

I really miss Alex Grady, Travis Brigley, and the original kickboxing characters and theme that this film had with the first 2 movies.

John


I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.


This movie is best described or compare to 'Big Fish' (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.

The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)


Most italian horror lovers seem to hate this movie since because it has no connection to the first two Demons films. And with the 'Demons III' in the title, one would assume it would. The problem is that this film was never intended to be part of the Demons series. The distributors only a 'Demons III' above its original title 'The Ogre' to cash in on the other films popularity. The new American DVD release of this picture has the title 'Demons III: The Ogre' on the box art but the film itself only says 'The Ogre'. I don't know if past releases had the title 'Demons III' on the actual film itself, but this new release just seems to be a little white lie. If you can get past the 'Demons III' in the title, you might some enjoyment in 'The Ogre'. It starts out with a creep intro, and stays pretty creep throughout. There's no gore and the film movies slowly, but I still dug it. Just don't expect it to be like the other Demons films. I give 'The Ogre' 7 out of 10. Italian fans should try it out.


I watched the 219 minute version and have to say that dollar-for-dollar, it it probably one of the worst films ever. Now I am NOT saying it's THE worst film ever--but if you look at a ratio of cost over how much an average person would enjoy it, this is a very, very bad film.

I would say that the single biggest factor making this a bad film is the writer/director, Michael Cimino. Rarely can so much blame be placed on a single person. Had he not been so self-indulgent, a film just as bad could have easily been made at about 90 minutes--saving the studio millions!

The film begins with a completely unnecessary prologue that's supposed to be set at Harvard. The scene is HUGE but completely without context. You have no idea exactly what is occurring nor do you know why the students (in particular, John Hurt) are behaving so boorishly. I find it very hard to imagine a commencement going like this in 1870--and it looks a lot more like 1970. This is a half hour where you have no idea what is happening, who the characters are or their motivations.

The next scene is 20 years later. Inexplicably, the two Harvard grads (Hurt and Kris Kristofferson) are in Wyoming. So, they went to the best school in America and now one is only a law man in the middle of no where and the other is....well, what IS John Hurt in the film?!?! He just appears here and there and seems to be either a jerk (the prologue) or a pathetic and pointless drunk who hangs out with murderers--even though he is apparently against them!? His entire character made no sense. They never explained why he was a Brit living in the middle of nowhere (it was impossible to hide his accent), why he bothered to come along with the hired army IF he was so against their wicked plan nor why he would risk his life for a cause he didn't believe in at all. As for Kristofferson, his excellent acting and better defined character made his character more believable, though having him move to Wyoming AND risk his life for a prostitute made no sense at all.

This brings up the worst aspect of HEAVEN'S GATE. While the scenes are WAY TOO LONG and needed trimming, the worst part of the film is that the characters were like cardboard. John Hurt (a wonderful actor with nothing to do in the film), Jeff Bridges and many other big names are there but you have no idea why. In fact, other than Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert (as a hooker with a heart of gold--quite the cliché) and perhaps Christopher Walken, EVERYONE is completely one-dimensional. It's hard to imagine a movie THIS long where you don't know or understand the characters.

Much of the film also seems anachronistic. Who would have thought to have a giant roller rink constructed in the middle of no where in 1890? I am sure that just getting the basic supplies in this region in the West would have been very, very difficult--and yet we are expected to believe that trains filled with roller skates and lumber arrived instead of FOOD. Maybe if they hadn't spent a bazillion dollars building and frequenting the roller rink, the farmers could have afforded to BUY food and avoided this war over purloined cattle!!! And what's with the guy on roller skates with the fiddle? What did this have to do with a land war?

The most obvious problem you are left with is that it's a film where very, very little actually happens until the big battle late in the film. There are lots of scenes of filth and flat nothingness. So much nothingness that by the time the battle occurs, many audience members would have left or are now so hostile to the film that it's inevitable that nothing could salvage the film.

As for the final battle, it was done reasonably well but had problems. First, this minor skirmish on the prairie lasted longer than the D-Day invasion!! Second, while details of the actual events of the so-called 'Johnson County War' are a tad sketchy, we do know that the characters played by Huppert and Kristofferson never actually were there, as they'd both been hung BEFORE the battle. Third, I can't believe that Cimino actually killed animals throughout the film--especially during the final battle. While I am far from a bleeding heart about animal rights, his need to use animal guts and actually kill some of the horses is a low point in cinematic history. Watching and knowing that some of the horses died to achieve Cimino's 'vision' for the film is very sad.

Finally, after the big battle, we have an epilogue. While it is blessedly short, it also seemed completely unnecessary and vague. We see Kristofferson on a fancy yacht, so we can assume that he's finally putting some of that Harvard education to work for himself. We also see a woman who appears to be one that Kris looked at a couple times during the prologue. Most importantly, nothing is said and you have no idea what the final outcome. I read up on it myself and found that the film often got the facts wrong.

Overall, to say the film is long and needed tons more editing was like saying WWII was a 'minor tiff'. Well, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but if you factor in the cost of production, I truly think it might just be one of the worst films in history.

Finally, when a film has this much explicit nudity I warn parents. However, as no child COULD sit through this film (even with a promise of sex), the warning is not necessary.


I caught 'On the Run' at the Screening Room in New York and was immediately seduced by its true independent spirit. Starring Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia from The Sopranos cast, 'On the Run' sets us up in a 24-hour wild ride in the city that never sleeps, as we follow the meanderings of an introspective sales agent who is suddenly dragged by his long-gone school companion, just out of jail. In fact he has escaped from it and is 'on the run' looking for some action and a glimpse of life amidst the great metropolis. Powered by great performances, this movie gives us back the old feeling of 70's pics, with both characters rediscovering themselves as they blaze across town bumping into wild events and locals. An elegy to a certain side of New York that seems to be disappearing, 'On the Run' displays great sensitivity and humour. I predict it to be a cult classic that urges to be discovered: future viewers should definitely surrender to this nocturnal trip.


This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's 'Ikiru(Live)' in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,'It is a good film, isn't it?'. I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,'Letyat zhuravli' must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as 'City light','Ikiru' and 'La Strada'.


I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The 'best' performance still did NINA HAGEN

TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the 'real world' scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??

I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The 'best' performance still did NINA HAGEN

TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the 'real world' scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??


Mario Lanza, of course, is 'The Great Caruso' in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.

The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from 'Lucia' will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.

In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in 'Girl of the Golden West,' There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.

Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during 'L'Elisir d'amore' at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen 'suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband,' that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.

Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film 'Match Point' -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in 'The Great Caruso' with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.

Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same.


This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.


are you crazy or what? this movie has talent who are you to criticize a movie that was made by famous directors and producers? i mean you must be watching some crappy version because if you had a proper version you wouldn't think its some low resolution game graphics..

this movie is for people who enjoy hongkong cinema the other side to what Asian people enjoy watching.. you are such a sellout.. hongkong cinema is totally different to that of Hollywood, hk cinema is in a class of its own...

so if you don't enjoy watching movies from hongkong producers don't go and ramble on about how its a waste of time to watch.. just let other people enjoy the movie..

and personally I've seen this movie and i love its story and the way it was made..


Even though this was a made-for-TV production, there's absolutely no excuse for the rock bottom results of the finished product. This movie DID have a budget and it had a casting department, so, if you're going to make a movie about a true life story, and actually put 'the true story' in the title, shouldn't some effort be put forward to try and capture some realism ? First of all, this movie is absurdly cast. These actors belong in daytime television soaps, or in those ridiculous Lifetime channel movies, and not in a real-life gangster/criminal tale. Everything about them, from their looks to their mannerisms, just screams of the 90's-shopping-mall-alt-rock-listening generation. What about the script ? Two words describes it - stupid and insulting, and again it's way too 90ish sounding. I don't think the real Clyde Barrow ever uttered the words 'I'm outta here.' It's as if a bunch of 'New Kids on the Block' fans got together and decided to make a really 'kewl flick' about Bonnie and Clyde, you know, one that would be totally rad and rockin'. Well, this sticker doesn't even rank on the rad and rockin' scale. Everything that can be wrong with any kind of film is wrong here, from the casting and acting to the editing and music. Every single thing is grossly wrong....and it's infuriating that the parties responsible for this atrocious turkey had the nerve to put 'the true story' in the title. It's certainly NOT the true story, but even worse, it's not even remotely entertaining as a mindless popcorn flick that's accepted on its own terms. Like I stated in my heading, it's simply horrible beyond words, on every level imaginable. Trust me on this, or watch at your own risk.


There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative 'escape' scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.

Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.

In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel '1984' that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.


For comedy to work, there are many factors involved:

1. Don't be afraid to take risks. 2. If anyone or anything deserves to be poked fun at, do it and continue to do it,

...but most of all:

3. BE FUNNY!!!!

'The Chaser's War on Everything' succeeds in all those three things. In fact, the show proved to be so popular and so funny that already only months after it's first episode, a DVD of the first season was released. I picked it up within days of it being released and hit the floor laughing and had so many fu#@ing tears in my eyes- It's that well, good!

In short and to save me blabbing on about the show- watch it, buy it, podcast it, whatever will make you watch the fu$#ing best show in the world!!!!!

Go the CHASER!!!!


'Bell Book and Candle' was shown recently on cable. Not having seen it for a while, we decided to take another look at this comedy. Based on the James Van Druten's Broadway hit, which was a vehicle for Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer in the early fifties, the film was adapted for the screen by Daniel Taradash. The film was directed by Richard Quine, who turned the play into a delightful comedy.

Evidently, judging by some of the comments submitted by IMDb, the big issue seems to be the pairing of the two stars, who had collaborated on 'Vertigo', released the same year. Movie audiences didn't think anything about the age difference when this film was released. In fact, most of the aging male stars of that period were always involved with much younger women.

The film set in Manhattan during Christmas is a delightful comedy that has enchanted viewers. Kim Novak was at the height of her beauty as it's clear the camera adored her no matter what was she playing. As the witch that becomes human, her Gillian is charming. James Stewart, who plays the publisher Shep' Henderson, is also seen at his best. Mr. Stewart was an excellent comedy actor who shows in here why he was at the top.

In supporting roles the wonderful Elsa Lanchester, playing Queenie, is a welcome addition to any movie, as she proves here. Jack Lemmon's Nicky Holroyd, the brother of Gillian, is also good. Ernie Kovacs is also seen as the writer Sidney Radlitch.

This is an excellent way to spend a winter night at home watching 'Bell Book and Candle'.


NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)

Cinema Cut: R

Director's Cut: NC-17

It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.

'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers

Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.

The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.

The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.

Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.

The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).

The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.

'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...

Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.

4/10


I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Continued...

From here on in the whole movie collapses in on itself. First we meet a rogue program with the indication we're gonna get ghosts and vampires and werewolves and the like. We get a guy with a retarded accent talking endless garbage, two 'ghosts' that serve no real purpose and have no character what-so-ever and a bunch of henchmen. Someone's told me they're vampires (straight out of Blade 2), but they're so undefined I didn't realise.

The funny accented guy with a ridiculous name suffers the same problem as the Oracle, only for far longer and far far worse. He has a simple point about cause and effect, makes it, then continues to make it and make it until it becomes convoluted and stupid. His final line before walking off is comparable to Storm's 'do you know what happens to a toad...' line in X-men in levels of utter bland baddness. The chocolate cake is such a lazy, pathetic cliche and Monica Bellucci as the wife does nothing other than exactly what we expect the moment we see her.

And then we get another kung fu fight!!! WHY? Neo is, allegedly, The One. He can do anything. He has the ultimate power and what does he use it for. Kung bloody fu all the time. And while he can stop 1000 bullets, he still gets cut by a sword and still makes a meal of 5 undecipherable henchmen (vampires?). I wanted to see mind blowing powers. I wanted to see him do the wildest, craziest most insane s*** to people because he can do anything. I got the same as before without the 'wow'.

The fabled car chase. That can't be bad. Well... no, it's not. It's just not what we've been tyold it was going to be. ALL the cool shots from this scene are in the trailer. Every one. So all possibly Wow has been taken from us so all we now get is a good chase sequence with, guess what, a kung fu fight!!! OK, it's not Neo, but you'd have thought he'd have explained to his closest friends about the reality of the Matrix. At least taught them something. It's not hard.

'Hey, Morpheus, don't worry about what happens to you in the matrix. It's not real. As long as you understand that nothing's real then nothing can really harm you.'

There you go. Simple.

OK, so the chase is not bad. It's never boring and it doesn't seem like 16 minutes. It's just so underwhelming. And still, it gets worse.

The final climax to the movie is quite probably the worst imaginable. They have this whole elaborate plan that involves three crews. They then only show it sporadically between Morpheus's over long, super preachy, monologue. To make it worse, they never clearly define what this plan that needs 3 teams is. You know basically, but you don't know who's doing what, when, so when one crew goes down you just don't care and you don't know how this is going to affect what goes on.

I'll sum it up though, it happens so Trinity can get back into the Matrix to setup the end. That's the only reason it happens. Which raises the question, why did they need to send 6 people originally? Trinity gets in in five minutes by herself!

Neo's journey to the centre of the Matrix (so to speak) is handled equally lazily. Ooohhh!!! He runs into another 100 Agent Smiths!!! Woooooo!!! That must've taken a lot of thought. Only now they're in a corridor so the fight has no scale and is over in a moment. Man, what a grand finale!!!

And then the Architect!!!

Remember everything I said was bad about the Oracle and the foreign guy? Add them together and double it, that's how truly appalling the Architect is. The only reasonable potential of him is he's about to set up the cliffhanging climax.

And then he blows it!

Let's look at the options he gives Neo. Choose one door and all humanity dies (except 27!!!). Choose the other and all humanity dies!!! Considering choice is something this film tries to explore it doesn't really give it's hero one. If he had a choice of Save humanity and the missus dies or Save the missus and kill humanity there's the potnetial for inner torment and tension. Also, with Trinity being mid fall, the potential of a real cliffhanger that would've made seeing the third more essential. But no. He has save no-one or save the missus.

Now, the very worst thing about the original Matrix was Neo dying and then coming back to life right at the end. The year it came out everyone was so annoyed by how stupid Jar Jar was they didn't notice that the very end of The Matrix made him look him Steven Hawking. 'The Oracle told me I'd fall in love with the One, and I love you'.... Come On!!!! How can the whole world have missed how utterly terrible that was?

So, what do the Wachowski's do in the sequel? Well, they make the ending of the original look better. How? Well, by doing almost exactly the same thing again (only swapping characters) only so much worse I think my f a and r keys would be worn out if I kept writing far before I got to worse.

And the cliffhanger is just not really a cliffhanger. It's a reminder.

Basically, this film is just bad. I really didn't want it to be bad, but it is. Bad in just so many ways. And to make matters worse, this isn't a film with not enough budget. It's not a film with too short a schedule. It's not a film that's been rushed out. It's not a film where too much influence has come from the outside. This is exactly the film the Wachowski's set out to make with Warner's fortune fully behind them. And that's what makes this so awful. At least Rancid Aluminium can say that it didn't haev enough time or money.

Matrix Reloaded. The worst film ever made? Maybe not quite. The most disappointing and defalting film ever made.

Undeniably.


A movie about dealing with the problems with growing up and being true to yourself, Blue Juice is mind candy for those who like surfing and Cornwall. Sean Pertwee is the real star of this film, while the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones plays his girlfriend and Ewan Mcgregor plays his drug addicted pal.

For those who don't like surfing or Cornwall in the slightest, you'll find that it takes a long time before the movie even hints at being interesting. The beginning is slow and spends too much time on long shots of only slightly interesting landscapes. Plus too many main characters leads to most of them being one dimensional. The plot is an interesting idea but because of the shallow characters you have no idea why they act in the situations they're put in.

Only Ewan, Sean and Catherine's characters make this a film worth being on videotape, which is why it was only released on videotape in the US after Ewan and Catherine reached mainstream fame.


Telly Savalas put on a passable (but no better than that) performance as Pancho Villa, the notorious Mexican bandit/revolutionary in this account of Villa's raid on the town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Villa is not really a historical figure who I'm overly familiar with, so I won't say much about the historical details of the film. As a movie, this isn't great, although it has a smattering here and there of both action and humour. Chuck Connors' performance as Colonel Wilcox, commander of the U.S. Army base near Columbus struck me as a bit over the top, and Clint Walker as Villa's Gringo sidekick Scotty didn't really do very much for me. The movie is obviously a pretty low budget effort of limited technical quality. For a movie with a runtime of only slightly over an hour and a half I have to say that this movie dragged in places, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Villa's raid into the United States was an interesting (if, in the overall scheme of things, not especially important) historical sidebar, and probably deserved better treatment than this. 4/10


A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.

Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.

Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use.


Put yourself into Carla's shoes. She is an overworked, unappreciated administrative drudge who is invisible. You know her: she's trained three of her last three bosses, knows where all of the bodies are buried and might even look back at you in the mirror when you brush your teeth. Always having time for another thankless task and does it better than most despite a serious disability, she has the desk on the way to the restroom that becomes the repository of half-finished cups of coffee begging to be spilled. What? You don't want to hear it? Well, she can't and neither can you until your hearing aid is in place. Prepare to experience life from the perspective of the hearing impaired.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) needs a change in her life. Work is leading nowhere; friends are relying on her to meet their domestic needs and the only way out starts with a collapse that goes virtually unnoticed. She won't take a vacation - a contract is going critical - so the only alternative is to hire an assistant. Carla submits requirements that convey her real needs: a 'well-groomed' man. This brings an applicant for approval that reminds us that we should be careful with our wishes.

Paul (Vincent Cassell) does everything wrong from the start of his job interview and his getting hired clearly demonstrates Carla's interest in his non-job-related qualities. She sees potential in this former thief and as the story unfolds, their relationship grows in a very unusual pattern of co-dependence.

Paul has a difficult transition returning to the world outside of prison walls and finds himself in another sort of prison: one of the office variety and another of indentured servitude to pay off an old debt. His skills as a thief help Carla win a political battle in the office. But Paul sees a grander opportunity with Carla's skill in lip reading and draws her even further into a world of intrigue.

This is a brutal film noir unrated and probably suitable for older teens. Carla grows more powerful, professionally as well as personally, as the story progresses and her disability gives her clear advantages over the rest of us. She grows as a woman discovering her sensual side while she uses her resources to overcome the obstacles of competing in a man's world.

The two main characters are meant for each other, in a strange way. Without Paul, Carla will remain in her role of a doormat. She has our sympathy, hopes and best wishes even if she doesn't make the best decisions along the way.

You will hear the world through Carla's ears, from awkward adjustments of your hearing aid, muffled sounds, all but inaudible without it to relatively distinct voices when you can see who's talking. With one major sense disabled, we see Carla's heightened intuitive power to compensate. And we can all use that sense to hear not only what people say, but also what they really mean.


So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod 'defacing' the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's 'freedom of the press' line sounded silly compared to '..Care to step outside' which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the 'turn back the world to go back in time' effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more.


overrated, poorly written, badly acted. did the academy even watch this? i guess not. the political content guaranteed it an Oscar nomination -- indo -pak border -- a little boy , terrorism. anything with the word 'terrorist' gets attention in

this post 9-11 world. its like holocaust movies that are guaranteed an Oscar nomination irrespective of their merits.

and please cinematography does not mean shooting landscapes which are pretty in the first place. you have to be a rotten shooter to screw up making the desert pretty. at least this didn't win the Oscar. they got that right at least. would have been a travesty.


Used to watch this when i was very little, then used to watch my videos. Now i watch the DVDs, i love this. Ray Winston is 'The Dude', the rest of the cast is all good and even with the changing of Robin Hood it all works. Great stories, twists and the way it was shot - to the untrained eye (not that mine is trained) can be miss-interpreted as being ropey but it adds to the films absorption of the audience. With the green hillsides and the contrast of the lush sunny lit forest to the dark corridors and dungeons of the castles - Its great. Personally the definitive interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. I cannot stress how much i think you should watch this, if you get a chance then YOU MUST WATCH IT.


Soapdish may go down as one of the single most under-rated movies ever made.

A stellar, unselfish cast who understood exactly where the movie was going and the roles they played in it. While everyone hammed it up, there was no one-upmanship. Kline showed wit and great physical comedy, Goldberg and Downey knew how to carry on a funny conversation while someone else was talking, I could just go on.

Do not pass this movie by!


This Christmas gift arrived courtesy of TCM. We had never seen the film, even though we have seen most of the films of Barbara Stanwyck. This comedy made us laugh so much, that at times, we had to restrain ourselves, in order to hear the dialog.

This is a movie that should be seen by people suffering from stressful situations, especially around Christmas. It would certainly lift one's spirits by just letting go. The movie would make a perfect gift in the form of a DVD, or a VHS tape.

'Christmas in Connecticut' was directed with great panache by Peter Godfrey, based on a story by Aileen Hamilton.

The best thing in the movie is the felicitous pairing of two of the most popular stars of that era: Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan. Barbara Stanwyck always played strong willed women, obviously, this was a change of pace for her. In this film, as well as 'Lady Eve', Ms. Stanwyck displays a knack for comedy. She and Mr. Morgan, who played in a lot of musical comedies, make a winning combination.

There are no weak performances in the film. Sydney Greenstreet, an actor notorious for playing 'heavies', is a delight to watch as the rich, and fat, Alexander Yardley, the man who owned a media empire and who knew a good thing when he saw it. Reginald Gardiner, an accomplished English actor, adds luster to the stellar cast behind the two principals.

S. Z. Sakall, is another source of continuous mirth; he plays the Hungarian chef Felix,who has a hard time with his own version of the English language. Also, Una O'Connor makes a perfect Norah, the housekeeper in the Sloan perfect Connecticut farm.

In reading other comments in this forum, it's sad to learn that the glorious black and white cinematography is not appreciated by some people. After all, color was not widely used in the 40s, and most of the classic movies have to be seen in its original format because, what would be accomplished in 'coloring' them?

This film should be a requirement for anyone looking to spend almost two hours of uninterrupted fun at Christmas time because total merriment is assured. Watch it with an open mind and heart an maybe you'd like to see 'Christmas in Connecticut' every year.