This film is about a young Indian guy who comes home one day and finds himself getting engaged to a woman. The problem is that he is gay. In order to stop the wedding without telling his parents that he is gay, one lie leads to another until it spirals out of control.

This film is hilarious and got me laughing many times. Sally Bankes' acting is superb and she plays this strong woman who does what she wants convincingly. The plot is outstanding as well. I find the plot very realistic, and I can completely identify with Jimi's feeling of being terrified, worried and upset. On the other hand, Jimi's boyfriend, Jack, is given much less attention in the film. I would have liked him to be given more lines in the film, and have more character development. However, as I guess the director wants to make this a more mainstream film, the love between Jimi and Jack was not developed in the film.

It is great to watch a gay affirmative film. Furthermore, this film preaches us to be accepting to other people's difference, be it sexuality, culture and the way of life. This film makes viewers think hard.

We need films like this to give us a boost. Thanks for making this film!


With Adam Sandler.

This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.

86 mins. rated R for Language.


Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy.


My Caddy Limo was destroyed!!! Well, I had one just like it - Drove the hoi polloi and many of the Chosen Ones around Manhattan for a few years.

That was a whole lot more entertaining than this movie I can tell you. Lordy, what a bomb - as in RPG go boom. I also drove a lot more stars in my white Caddy than appeared in this dud of a flick.

Robert Patrick is a very serious actor and did a credible job with the nonsense he had to work with. Unfortunately, Rutger Hauer played his part like a red-nosed circus clown. If he couldn't take it serious why should his audience? The director should have kicked his butt off the set in the first hour of filming.

The dialog was written by 10 yr old's for 8 yrs old's. Surprised there wasn't a whole lot more cracking up on the sets. Oh well, I am a movie fanatic - ergo - you must take the bad to get to the good.


This is movie is actually one of my all time favorites. I'm not a Renny Harlin fan because most of his movies suck, but TLKG hits its mark time after time. TLKG is about a woman named Samantha Cain (Davis) who suffers from amnesia. she is married with a kid and as she qoutes 'I'm a goddamn member of the PTA.' and then her world comes crumbling down as the pieces fall into place about her earlier identity. Samuel Jackson plays a con artist cop who does PI gigs, he is dragged along by her to solve her identity and to get paid some cash for his work. along the way we find out Samantha is really Charlie Baltimore, a secret spy that was left for dead years earlier. the plot is great, making this story seem real and Jackson does a great job as second fiddle to Davis (whom always does a great acting job). the explosions are endless, the action is intertwined with memorable scene after memorable scene. pretty impressive visually though the kid got on my nerves at the end (watch out of the cars!) I'm tired of little kids screwing up a film to be saved but still, this movie is worth it as the kid adds to the film. again, this movie is really good, i never understood why it didn't make more at the box office but if it was a man starring in the movie I'm sure it would have grossed a hundred million. what is good is that over the years more people are discovering this movie and giving it good marks as the average of this film on this site has risen over the years. i hope it goes up further as this is one great action film. and i love action films


While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them:

1. The Acting  When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.

2. The Ghosts  The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.

3. The Plot  How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.

4. The Convenient Priest  What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.

5. Everything Else  It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner  noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.

I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.


Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like 'Who the hell is this dude?'. I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie.

Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her.

The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson.

The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring.

The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny.

Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.


Brilliant technology. But what good does it do if the content is hollow and foolish. I have left after < than 30 minutes of watching, being bored and irritated.

The theatre administration returned my money, but the time waisted and aggravation remained. I have been had and no thanks to the stars whose names were the main attraction.

George, Meryl, Bill - I hope you were well paid. You might have even liked it. So I apologies for my limited mind. A lot of people seemed to like it too. Look at the comments. Oh well...

Wish to know - what is remotely redeeming in a story about Mr Fox the husband, the father, the citizen, the ...whatever.


I watched this movie to see the direction one of the most promising young talents in movies was going. Unfortunately, with this movie, Leelee Sobieski has chosen a path not only well worn, but completely free of any meaningful destination. This movie used every hackneyed trick in the book to leave the screen, tap you on the shoulder and politely ask if it can have your heartstrings so that it may give them a good tug. Romance can be done well, and when it is, the viewer is left feeling the love portrayed on screen. During the emotional climax of this movie, I laughed. Heartily. To save you the time and money, I would suggest, instead of seeing this movie, you have a meal of Karo syrup and Velveeta. It's about the same.


A bloody maniac with cannibalistic tendencies rapes a woman. He's been shot by two policemen and then he is risen from the grave because of some sort of satanic ceremonial rite preformed by an evil heresy. The hunting of women continues by this zombie-demon. The sacrificed baby returns from the grave and wants the maniac dead again, but only with the help of the police this will come true...

A bloody 65-minute mess...Horny zombies, doll-babies, S&M, corrupted and twisted policemen, repented heretics who seek refuge in front of Jesus Christ and three text-screens at the end of the film explaining us what finally happened to the policeman who survived (yes, we ought to know!)... Two decent disemboweling shots can't save the situation. I've seen worst horror-flicks, but this one was pretty bad too. Recommended only for the die-very-hard fans of the genre.


This landmark film can now be seen in two different versions on the Grapevine Video release which also includes the English translation of Selma Lagerlof's novel which she based on a Swedish folktale. The first version is the Swedish edit under the title of THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE. The second version is a reconstruction of the way it was shown in the United States under the title of THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT as released by Metro (before it was M-G- M). The actual US release has long vanished but a detailed review in The New York Times lets us know how the scenes were reordered for domestic release -- and both are fascinating to see. Each version of this film was presented at The Organ Loft in Salt Lake City with live theatre organ scores provided by artist Blaine Gale. A live recording was made of these performances and are included on the Grapevine Video DVD along with the novel and notes about the two versions. While THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE follows the order of Lagerlof's novel, THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT is in some ways easier to follow. Seeing the two different edits is an education in how silent films could be changed effectively for release in different countries.

Some viewers look at this film as a horror film which it certainly is not. This is a morality play with shades of the supernatural used to hit home its stark message. The directing and lead performance by the great Victor Sjostrom were way ahead of their time. It's easy to see why M-G-M brought him to Hollywood to direct such films as Lillian Gish in THE SCARLET LETTER and THE WIND as well as Lon Chaney in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. In America he was known as Victor Seastrom. He would also star in the lead role of Ingmar Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, giving a masterful performance. Bergman was greatly influenced by KORKARLEN or THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE in his earlier days.

This is a powerful film that is well worth taking some time to discover and study. The Grapevine Video release is an excellent way to do this.


Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word 'Irish' and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!


I've watched this documentary twice - and although I'm an major movie buff, most documentaries don't hold my attention. This film however was mesmerizing. Almost every shot is perfect - saying so much more than an audio commentary (which this documentary does not have).

The concept of this film is amazing, I can't praise it enough. Mardi Gras beads - who would have thought??

Amazing and excellent choices of interviews - film footage of a factory in China - the film makes you feel like you are actually there.

I'm political aware - and I've read several books on globalization so there wasn't anything in this film that was a surprise to me. However, it's made me think so much.

I wish so much too, that this world was a better place.

A million kudos to the filmmaker - and thanks for making this film too.

I wish everyone could see it.


The Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline

Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant/John Merchant/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead

Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.

Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.

The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines('Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you') and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.

The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.

The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.

Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.

Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.

Rating: 1/2* of *****


This movie about a group of small town teens that decide to rob the local bank is excellent. Brian (Justin Walker) wants to get out of his small town, much like Jimmy Stewart in 'It's A Wonderful Life.' However, unlike George Bailey, Brian is going to rob a bank to finance his dream of attending art school, even if his father is not supportive. The offer to Brian is to act like a customer and distract the guard. It's a tempting offer that if offered to many, I question what they would do. Anyways, Brian does it. When the Sheriff (James Remar) and his force surround the bank, things go from bad to worse. It's a standoff with even the Feds moving in to kill the kids if they have a clean shot. The Sheriff must prevent this and try to end the standoff in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, tensions rise, and the teens inside turn on each other. Some are out of control. The paper cutter scene is gruesome and hard to watch. Very intense!


My introduction into Yoji Yamada's cinematic world is through his famed and recent Samurai Trilogy with The Twilight Samurai, The Hidden Blade and Love and Honor. I had enjoyed all three films, and looking at the prolific, veteran director's filmography, I think it'll take me a very long while to watch all his films, especially the Tora-san series. Needless to say when Kabei Our Mother has finally reached our shores, I jumped at the chance to watch what would be an ode to Mothers everywhere, celebrating their innate love for their children.

Based on the autobiography of Teruyo Nogami, Kabei - Our Mother tells of a close knit family of four  Mother Kayo 'Kabei' (Sayuri Yoshinaga), Father Shigeru 'Tobei' (Mitsugoro Bando), eldest daughter Hatsu (Mirai Shida) and youngest child Teru (Miku Sato). From the get go their lives would be changed forever, when Shigeru gets arrested under the Peace Preservation Law for his morally controversial writings against the nation, set in the late 30s where Japan had begun their 'crusade' in China, and thereafter their participation in WWII.

So begins Kabei's struggle to hold down jobs to feed her family, and the frequent, difficult meetings with her husband behind bars. Help comes from relatives, especially on Shigeru's side, since Kabei's own dad had adopted an 'I told you so' attitude with her choice of spouse. Shigeru's one time student Yama (arthouse buffs should recognize Tadanobu Asano here) provides laughter as a bumbling man who slowly becomes confidante and surrogate guardian to the children, and Kabei's sister in law Hisako (Rei Dan) from Hiroshima, which I believe would have sounded some hindsight alarm bells as to her unfortunate fate as the film progresses through its timeline.

While the film centers primarily on how the kids are growing up under the presence of their mom, and in a distant relationship with their dad, what I enjoyed is how the microscopic family events unfold under the macroscopic worldwide events that have impacted on the common folk in Japan. It's against the historical backdrop of Japan's push to regional dominance, and there are characters here that don't mask those ambitions, even discussing what the country would eventually do should it be successful in holding onto conquered lands. This is something I rarely see in Japanese films, being that frank in their discussion of that era, and also to get a glimpse of how the common man have to struggle against domestic issues made all the more difficult with resources channeled toward the war effort.

The actresses casted here are pitch perfect in their delivery and roles, be they the veterans or the child actors. Actress Sayuri Yoshinaga deserves special mention for her role as the motherly figure who has to dig deep and find that inner strength to carry the household through under trying circumstances, while Mirai Shida and Miku Sato are lovable as the understanding children who have to learn to make do and compromise. Each scene with the three of them together just makes it heart wrenching when the going gets tough, or fill your heart with Joy should they be celebrating. Before long you'll soon find yourself being attracted to want to be part of this family, thanks to the primary cast's powerful performances, with Yoji Yamada coaxing some really natural performances from the kids.

Kabei - Our Mother boasts some stunningly beautiful art direction, and is classy in its delivery of both happy and sad moments without going over the top, or relying on cheap melodrama to cheapen the emotions it seeks from the audience. There are plenty of little things here done right which makes it pitch perfect, with every scene not being wasted, and with every nuance very meaningful in conveying its message across, be it compassion or love.

Aside from the very abrupt ending (I had hoped that it could have continued for a lot more, despite its more than 2 hours runtime), Kabei Our Mother comes highly recommended, and you'll find it difficult to be holding back either your tears, or that thought about your own mom and her sacrifices she makes for you on an everyday basis. Just what those sacrifices are should you need another reminder, then the scene during the end credits roll will remind you of the stuff that you'd probably have taken for granted.


An enthralling, wonderful look at the films that inspired the excellent Martin Scorsese. Many of the films he speaks of are easy to relate to his works, particularly the earlier ones, the silent era. Very enjoyable despite being a bit long, I found this to be one of the best documentaries on film yet. Required viewing if you admire Martin Scorsese and his work.


If it were possible, I would have given this sorry excuse for a movie a ZERO star. It was by far the worse I have ever seen. It was as if it were a home movie that some bored highschoolers decided to make as a joke. The 'acting' was horrific. The 'actors' didn't even react to the fact that they were being murdered.

Honestly, I bought this movie by mistake. The Spanish title said Jeepers Creepers 3, so I thought hmm maybe it'll be OK. Wrong. It was honestly the worst ever. I didn't get past 20 minutes of the stupid movie. I skipped through chapters and nothing interesting ever seemed to happen.

The cameramen were also terrible. It was like a home movie. I would NEVER recommend anyone to watch this. Terrible terrible moronic movie.


I honestly had no idea that the Notorious B.I.G. (Bert I. Gordon the director; not the murdered rapper) was still active in the 80's! I always presumed the deliciously inept 'Empire of the Ants' stood as his last masterful accomplishment in the horror genre, but that was before my dirty little hands stumbled upon an ancient and dusty VHS copy of 'The Coming', a totally obscure and unheard of witchery-movie that actually turned out a more or less pleasant surprise! What starts out as a seemingly atmospheric tale of late Dark Ages soon takes a silly turn when a villager of year 1692 inexplicably becomes transferred to present day Salum, Massachusetts and promptly attacks a girl in the history museum. For you see, this particular girl is the reincarnation of Ann Putman who was a bona fide evil girl in 1692 and falsely accused over twenty people of practicing witchcraft which led to their executions at the state. The man who attacked Loreen lost his wife and daughter this and wants his overdue revenge. But poor and three centuries older Loreen is just an innocent schoolgirl,  or is she? 'Burned at the Stake' unfolds like a mixture between 'The Exorcist' and 'Witchfinder General' with a tad bit of 'The Time Machine' thrown in for good measure. Way to go, Bert! The plot becomes sillier and more senseless with every new twist but at least it never transcends into complete boredom, like too often the case in other contemporary witchcraft movies like 'The Dunwich Horror' and 'The Devonsville Terror'. The film jumps back and forth between the events in present day and flashbacks of 1692; which keeps it rather amusing and fast-paced. The Ann Putman girl is quite a fascinating character, reminiscent of the Abigail Williams character in the more commonly known stage play 'The Crucible' (also depicted by Winona Ryder in the 1996 motion picture). There are a couple of cool death sequences, like the teacher in the graveyard or the journalist in the library, that are committed by the ghost of malignant reverend who made a pact with Ann Putman and perhaps even the Devil himself. The film gets pretty spastic and completely absurd near the end, but overall there's some good cheesy fun to be had. Plus, the least you can say about Bert I. Gordon is that he definitely build up some directorial competences over the years.


(Spoilers)

I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.

The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.

First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.

Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.

Too bad.


This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the 'game' spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - 'backstabbed' in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, 'Do you love your old man?' and never, 'Do you love me?' Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.


I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.

Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.

Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.

One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: 'Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!' The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.

The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.

So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.


This could have been the best game ever!! But the game makers just screwed up after 3 assassinations and the ending!! This is a combination of Prince Of Persia, Hit-man, GTA and Age Of Empires II (Saladin).

Yes these four games mentioned above are considered to be one of the greatest games ever made.

You combine the four and you get this game!! It has all the good aspects of the four games like acrobatic skills, stealth assassinations, open world and the HISTORY!! For the first 3 assassinations you feel this game is greatest!! But after the third, things seem to get so repetitive, that you only hope for the GAME to END.

I have played this on a PC and the PC version is horrible with glitches and the stupid side missions are senseless.

MY advice to all. This is a good game but get it EITHER for the XBOX360 or PS3. DON'T get it for the PC.

Lastly, this game came from the creators of Prince Of Persia. Surely the producer is hot, but the game is not hot and it is NOT better than the four games mentioned above!!


I really enjoyed 'Doctor Mordrid'. This is a low-budget film, which may be off-putting to some, but I have no problem with it. I admire it even more for that, considering it's WAY more entertaining than the drivel that Hollywood churns out every year. Too bad this didn't get a theatrical release; I don't know about anyone else, but I would have went to see it in theatres. `Doctor Mordrid' is a very entertaining science fiction film that just about anyone can enjoy, especially if they're into sci-fi like I am. I don't see why this is a R-rated film; only one f-word is said, and there are no gruesome death scenes, nor is there any blood at all. The timeless rivalry between sorcerers Anton and Kabal (Anton wanted the use his powers to save the human race, while Kabal wanted to enslave them), gave the story a sense of enchantment, while the mythical plotline added charm to the story itself. Basically, this a film that's just plain fun to watch. There is one unintentionally funny thing in this movie, though: seeing Jeffrey Combs keeping a straight face while wearing that silly blue cape and suit. That makes me laugh every time I see it. But I digress... Anyway, the acting is great; the main protagonists (Anton, and his lady friend, Samantha), are very likable; Anton is sympathetic, and hospitable, and Samantha is friendly. Plus, the settings were wonderful. The floating island in the other dimension was very cool setting; we're only given a glimpse of it twice, though; it would have been great to see more scenes take place here. The main setting was also very neat; Anton's apartment is very roomy, and he has some cool devices, especially the monitoring system he uses to keep track of the world's occurrences. He even has a pet raven that he keeps in his apartment named Edgar. Overall, this a great film; it was fun to watch, and the main actors put a lot of feeling into their roles. If you can find anywhere that rents `Doctor Mordrid', you should rent it (or, in my case, buy it. It was definitely money well-spent)!

My Rating: 8 stars out of ten.


Part II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.

As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.

I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling.


I'm generally not a fan of high school comedies, they rely heavily on humor in bad taste and rarely stray far from clichéd story lines and characters and downright dull dialog. However, I've had my share of guilty pleasures, particularly when I was still in high school myself. Seeing the oh-so-recognizable teacher figures get their butts kicked always cheered me up and an occasional laugh could also be the case. These movies only work if at least one of the characters is an instantly likable one, this was not the case in 'Cheats', especially not the protagonist. Of course, it didn't help that the actor in play was one of the most irritating, no-talent, arrogant kids I've ever seen in a comedy.

To act in a comedy is no joke, it's hard to be funny: the delivery has to be just right or the material goes to waste. In this case there wasn't much good stuff to begin with and the jokes that were half-funny were screwed up professionally by the cast.

This movie felt 3 hours long, the director never heard of pacing obviously. Stay away from this one, there are many other enjoyable teen comedies out there such as 10 Things I Hate About You, Who's Your Daddy and Superbad.


Now maybe it had something to do with the fact that I saw this movie at a low point in my life, when I was really trying to figure out where I was going and what I needed to make myself happy, but this film really spoke to me. Jane is an everywoman: although she has so many positive things going for her, she is still vulnerable and unhappy in her life. She is strong and intelligent, but she was cheated out of achieving her potential by an unfortunate accident and is living a second-choice life. She seeks out new challenges and happiness, seeking desperately to fill the hole in her heart. Dreya Weber is an exquisite Jane. As we journey with her we feel the depth of her despair, the torture of her desperation and, eventually, the strength of her conviction. The beautiful Addie Yungmee is also very well cast and an asset to the production. Allison Mackie is a scene stealer as a saucy character with impeccable timing. I highly recommend this film; although it's low budget, it has big budget writing and production values. PS- great aerial scenes with two beautiful sexy women. Women will love the story and characters, but there's something for the men here, too. :)


Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a 'black movie' sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.

Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.

I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!

I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...


Awful, dreadful, terrible. The actors are bad, the music is ridiculous and the filming pathetic. I rented the DVD and had to force myself to watch it until the end.

My advice: read the book, it is much better and you won't have to put up with all these silly images and ridiculous dreams Catherine has.

I think I have never watched such a bad movie.


Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.

Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.

This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.

It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the 'knock, knock, knock / ENTER!' scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.

In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie.

Ten stars. Put a little 'Sunshine' in your life.


The significance of French title of this film, 'La Naissance des Pieuvres' which literally means 'The Birth of the Octopuses', is rather obscure, so it is perhaps not surprising that it has been marketed in English-speaking countries as 'Water Lilies'. The 'lilies' of the English title are three teenage girls, Marie, Anne and Floriane, who are members of a synchronised swimming team based in the Paris suburbs, and the film is a 'coming-of-age' drama about the development of their first sexual feelings.

One feature of the film, perhaps unusual for a film of this type, is that it concentrates exclusively on relationships between the young people themselves. We see nothing of their parents or their teachers, and very little of the adult world at all. The three girls are very different in appearance, and are portrayed as being very different in character. The shy, retiring Marie is slim and petite and appears to be the youngest of the three. Anne is something of a plain Jane, Floriane a glamorous blonde who is very popular with the boys. The three, together with a handsome male swimmer named Francois, are involved in what might be described as a love-quadrilateral.

Anne has fallen in love with Francois, but he is smitten with Floriane, who seems to return his affections, although he is by no means her only male admirer. Indeed, not all of Floriane's admirers are male, because Marie has a crush on her attractive friend. The film charts the way in which their friendship develops; at first it seems that Floriane is simply using Marie as a convenient excuse when she is in fact going out to meet boys; her parents presumably object to her dating boys, but have no objection to her going out with female friends. Later, however, we realise that, despite Floriane's image as the sexy, popular girl who is always the centre of male attention, she actually reciprocates Marie's feelings. The film reverses some conventional stereotypes about sexuality. Anne, with her short hair and rather chunky figure, looks typically 'butch', yet she is the only one of the three main characters who is unambiguously heterosexual, whereas the more conventionally feminine Marie and the glamorous Floriane are lesbian, or at least bisexual.

Coming-of-age films are common enough, although most of them tend to avoid the controversial topic of teenage lesbianism. 'Water Lilies', however, deals with its subject-matter in a sensitive way, with three very good performances from its three leading actresses, Pauline Acquart, Adele Haenel and Louise Blachere. The relationships between the characters, especially that between Marie and Floriane, are complex, and capable of a number of interpretations. (Is Floriane, for example, simply using Marie for sex, or does she genuinely have romantic feelings for her? Could Floriane's sluttish behaviour with Francois and the other boys be just a device to hide her lesbian feelings from the outside world? Or even to hide them from herself?) This was the first film made by its young director Celine Sciamma (only 27 at the time); on this basis she must be regarded as a highly promising newcomer. 7/10


This movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?

Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!

I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.

PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.

If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.


Over the weekend i watched the movie Tipping the Velvet and if I was to have to score this movie out of 100 I would have to give it 100 no question asked. I am a true believer in true love and this movie moved me in alot of different ways and the actors fit the parts without a doult. But I have to say that the ending was not so great for I did not see that spark in Nancys eyes when ever she looked into Flo's eyes, as her eyes sparked each time she looked at Kitty, Kitty only had to be in the room or in Nancy's thought and Nancy would just glow fron that spark. Kitty told Nancy that she could not find her and that she looked for her, but could not find her. Kitty was ready to give it all up to get Nancy back. In Kitty's eyes you could see Kitty's pain. I believe that Nancy should have let Kitty see that thier love is true and strong and that she would not let her go that easy. You need to make a part two and have the two make it together, but you must not let anyone else play the roles it has to be the real Kitty & Nancy or it'll never work. My mother once told me that true love is just not real. I am no fool I know that we all have a true love out someplace just waiting for each of us and I believe with my life that Nancy's true love really is only Kitty and Kitty's true love is only Nancy. Come on lets play the game the right way, the only way. Let Nancy's eyes shine again.... Kitty lost her everything, by losing Nancy. And Kitty is not to be the only one to blame. I am gay myself and being gay is not easy!! WAKE UP!!! in 1889 I'd not want to be gay, Kitty was lost deep inside herself and in 1889 maybe the right thing to do was to be married to a man. Even though you love a woman. Kitty needed Nancy to stand up to her needed Nancy to fight for her. Myself I remember how deeply I loved this girl and I let her get away because I thought I was doing something wrong and I went back to my ex-boyfriend. I thought I was doing the right thing, but I know I was wrong to let go of her and I will pay for the rest of my days,for like Kitty I could not find her anyplace. I heard that she is married to a man in the U.S.A someplace. I even heard that he beats her. I guess in the end we both lose. Give the two girls one more chance life can be very lonely if you are not true to you and your loved one.

Thank You, Kristen Ann


Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.

This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.


This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.

So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).

There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.

Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?

Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.

Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT.


I agree whole-heartedly with the comments so far. I remember this documentary as being one of the most amazing and informative I've ever seen. As stated before, I recall that I began watching, thinking it was just another nature study - interesting, not necessarily special, but I was so wrong. Not only was the story of the colony incredible, but I remember the music as being so much a part of it's appeal. If I remember correctly, it was Native Americn pipes (akin to the music at the end of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest). I, too have been looking for a copy. This should be required watching for anybody, but especially the schools. It should be re-released.


I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties.


I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.

The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.

It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.


Hilary was great as julie, and Pat was once again magnificent as Mr. Miyagi, but there should have been more references towards the other three movies! I mean, come on! First off, Where's Daniel!? Miyagi makes a very brief mention of him and that's it. Daniel was his best friend and should've at least made an appearance in the movie. He could've helped Miyagi train Julie-San! On the flip side, the music stayed true to the movie though, with a little more instrumentation(Fretless Bass)to accompany the wonderfully played Pan-Flute! It doesn't feel like a Karate Kid movie unless you hear that Pan-Flute! Thank you Zamfir! Overall, a decent movie though! We miss you Noriyuki!


A few days ago, I watched a documentary called THE FIFTY WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME and this is where I first heard of THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. Being a lover of schlocky films, I am making it a point to try to find some of the films from the documentary--not just including THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. In fact, MELTING MAN is the first 'bad film' I have seen since then and I must say I am rather disappointed. While it truly is a bad film, it comes nowhere near close enough to make inclusion on this list.

Now before seeing the documentary, I have enjoyed 'bad films' ever since I read the book 'The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time' by Harry Medved. Despite the same title, the book came out long, long before the documentary and the makers of the documentary never credited Medved with the concept. From the Medved book, I have seen about 35 of the 50 films but have come to an impasse--the rest of the films just aren't available on VHS or DVD. So, I thought I'd try the film by the same name.

The reason I was most disappointed with THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN was that there were a few good elements to the film. First, the melting guy special effects were generally really cool and disgusting. It's obvious that a professional (the famous Rich Baker) was involved in making this look realistic. However, I should also point out that there were also more than a few cheap and cheesy effects as well--such as the floating plastic head and the way the monster ran around after his left arm was cut off--you could see it 'cleverly hidden' under his clothes! As for the story, it's just stupid. A group of astronauts miraculously penetrate the rings of Saturn without being crushed. Then, they comment about how beautiful the sun is--as we see closeups of it. This is odd since Saturn is so far from it--it should NOT look this way--it should be a large speck. Regardless, immediately the scene changes and we're told that one of the surviving astronauts is in a hospital. What happened between the last scene and this one? Yep, it's anyone's guess. Well, soon after, the survivor escapes and engages in a murderous rampage as his entire body melts.

Now considering they have a psycho running about who looks like a melting popsicle, you'd think the government would pull out all stops to find and stop him, right?! Wrong. A general engages one lone doctor to find him!! No army, no police--just some dopey doctor. Even after bodies begin stacking up, at no point do the doctor or general do anything to organize a meaningful search or get backup.

Now, given the stupidity of the film, you also wouldn't be surprised to find the following:

When the melting dude is running around near the doctor's house, the doctor gives his wife a powerful sedative and leaves her in the house.

When a cute old couple is driving late at night, they naturally stop in an orchard to pick fruit and are killed.

When a lady sees melting dude, she barricades the door to protect herself. This would be smart IF she didn't have the back door of the house next to her! Instead of just leaving the house and escaping, she just waits!

When a photographer and his model are taking snapshots, the guy grabs his assistant and yanks off her top. Why? Well to give the audience a cheap thrill and make it a rated R flick.

When the melting dude is finally located and the sheriff has a clear shot at him, the doctor stops him--even though by now the monster had killed about a half dozen people.

So, as you can see the film abounds with stupid plot elements. It is a very bad film. But, given the occasionally good special effects, it just wasn't a horrible film like I'd hoped. Sure, it's good for a laugh, but no where near PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE in badness and never should have been included on anyone's worst film list.


Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction.

Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes).

On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.

Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on 'how not to bring an interesting idea to life' when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.

2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever 'Bottom of the Shelf' in VHS format.

3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity.

4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.

5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.

6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's 'Nightmare' franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.

Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' 1984.


That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.


Streetfight (aka Coonskin) is a very unique film directed by animation pioneer Ralph Bakshi. It is an oddity of the cinema, and is very much worth seeing. It is live action mixed with animation, seemingly influenced on Disney's legendary Song of the South, almost as if it is a response to that flick. Philip Michael Thomas, later to become Don Johnson's sidekick on Miami Vice, and Scatman Crothers, most famous for his role in Kubrick's The Shining, are prison escapees. Charles Gordone and Barry White (yes, that Barry White) are Thomas' friends and plan to help him escape prison. They are stuck at a police roadblock, and Crothers tells Thomas a story about a black rabbit, a bear, and a fox who move from the South to Harlem in order to find a more peaceful existence. The story is animated, and provides a lot of wonderous things to see. Like all of Bakshi's films, most will be annoyed and will dislike the animation. True animation lovers will forgive its clunkiness and fall in love with its inventiveness. The movie is very violent, very sexual, and it is mostly about battles between the races. For a long time, I thought I was watching something extremely important, but after a while, especially after I got done watching it, it started to seem more like a run-of-the-mill blacksploitation flick, along the lines of Superfly. It's very sloppy and doesn't really say anything. Besides, isn't Bakshi white? Whatever the answer to that, Coonskin/Streetfight is still very much worth watching for animation aficionados as well as cult movie fans. 7/10.


This show drives me crazy. It goes against everything a family should be, even if it is intended to be a comedy. The show is suppose to follow Dave and Vicky Gold (Michael Rapaport and Anita Barone) as they raise their three teenage children: Hilary, Larry, and Mike. A good premises for a comedy yes but it does not mean it will be a good show.

I don't think I've ever heard cruder talk from parents to children and vice versa. The only talk that seems to be in the show is control of children by the parents and sex. I know that sexual intercourse is usually a subject talked about by teenagers often but it is brought up in nearly every episode with no point to it. The one episode I was just watching involved the parents giving their daughter, Hilary a car, not once do you think they are related in anyway by the way they talk to each other and how the parents talk about how Hilary is like 'their slave.'

The show fails on the comedy level the most. I haven't laughed at this show once in the numerous times I have attempted to watch it, and I'm a person who gave such films as Animal House and Dumb and Dumber very high marks. Michael Rapaport is a very good actor and why he choose to ruin his career by making this piece of filth show is beyond me.

Parents, make sure your children never and I mean never watch this. Teenagers, you'll probably get a laugh out of this just for the blatant sexual references but nothing comes out of it and afterwards you feel rather empty.

1 1/2/ 5 Stars.


Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone.


The Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.

This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized 'something' here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.

I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.


Great. Another foreign film that thinks it's Fellini. On top of that, we have to have more propaganda about murdering disabled people.

I see no reason why we have to be inundated with these thinly disguised euthanasia commercials.

I found nothing redeeming about this film. What can be redeeming about a man without the courage to carry on, in spite of some adversity. It does not take courage to commit suicide. That is the action of a coward. Sharing this 'wish' with his woman simply inflicts her with the same illness he has. If this had been a film about a man's courage to go on, in spite of his problems, similar to the Jill Kinmont story, that would have made it a great film.

If you're interested in seeing true courage, check out the movies about Jill Kinmont, the former skier who was disabled after a bad ski accident.


I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ramón Sampedro, who was well known in Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident.

Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong symbology in its title, which I would translate as 'Into the Sea' and not as some suggest 'Out to sea', and which is taken from an original poem written by the man this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character: Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character. You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the movie: Gené, the member of the association that defend his right to die with dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ramón, and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand.

However, before meeting these women Ramón knew what was love like, because you cannot meet him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly, life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel Rivera's work as Ramón's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance.

I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting 'Mar adentro', let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the screen, is when Ramón dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and they kiss each other. 2. Gené speaking by phone with Ramón, the day before he is going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment, not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ramón in the beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem, face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did.

Mar adentro did not deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die 'legally', which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who loved him around.


I thought Sliver offered the most boring and trivial 'trick' ending in movie history, but of course I was wrong. I had no disillusions that this movie was going to be good. Unfortunately, it was worse than I expected. The worst part is that the obvious ending is so ridiculous and horrible that you can't believe it until it actually happens.


they have sex with melons in Asia.

okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.

the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!


Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur is not one of his best-regarded films; made between two vastly more popular and critically praised pictures, Suspicion and Shadow Of a Doubt, it's generally regarded as a lesser effort. I agree that the later film is groundbreaking, drawing Hitchcock wholly into the American mainstream for the first time, but Saboteur is in its way at least as lively as Suspicion; its chief flaw being its less than charismatic star players, Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane.

In Saboteur we find Hitchcock feeling his way around America, literally, as its lead character travels from California to New York in search of an arsonist for whose crime he was accused. Cummings is very youthful here, and quite engaging. His boyishness (but not immaturity) perfectly suits the character he is portraying, and seems appropriate, as the director, though middle-aged, was in the process of reinventing himself, and an older, more established star might have thrown things off. Priscilla Lane's spunky heroine, which not a typical type for the director, was very much a common type in American films at the time; and she and Cummings provide an openness and a youth the director needed both in his life and work at this time. I cannot imagine older, more solid types,--Cooper and Stanwyck for instance--doing any better, as they would have, between them, carried, well, too much baggage.

As is the norm in Hitchcock's films, nothing is as it appears. Where Saboteur differs from his better known films is that the audience is let in on the game early. Though Cummings is an accused arsonist, we know that he is innocent. The villains become apparent fairly soon; and the movie hinges more on its plot than its ironies. What pleasures there are are incidental, and here the Master does not disappoint. There is an interesting, Tod Browningish interlude with some circus freaks, who help Cummings elude capture. In another scene, reminiscent of James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein, Cummings spends some time in the cottage of a blind man, who, as it turns out, is Lane's uncle. Was the director perhaps studying key American films of the previous decade? Whatever the case, these and other offbeat and discursive aspects of the movie give it a playfulness and variety, which, when one adds the factor of quite youthful leads, makes the picture seem like the work of a younger man, still learning his craft.

The film's later scenes, in New York, are more suspenseful and typical of the director, as the picture gradually becomes more Hitchockian as it moves along. In the end I find it a satisfying work; and as neither Cummings nor Lane has a dark side as an actor, neither does the movie have one. It is deliberately lightweight, and I suspect semi-experimental; an attempt by Hitchcock to see if he could pull off, in an American setting, the sort of story he had done so well in England. He succeeded admirably. The next logical step: Shadow Of a Doubt, a film in which the main character travels east to west, and with a wholly different set of values and plans.


Well, if you like pop/punk, punk, ska, and a tad bit of modern psycho billy, then seeing the live performances are about the only thing worth watching. This movie has tons and tons of band cameos, along with president of Troma, Lloyd Kaufman as a semi-major role, and lots of goofy death scenes. Sounds like it may be good, right? Well, the deaths keep coming, and repeatedly to many different bands of the Warp Tour and the fans at the event. Some of the deaths start of stylish, but then they are recycled over and over, to the point of being completely repetitive. Almost everyone dies of having their head smashed, or intestines being pulled from their stomach. The gore looks as if it was from Andreas Schnaas' 'Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence'; with this being the 'watered-down type blood', but now that movie is actually decent, and provides humor-something that this movie terribly lacks. Sure, the movie is made by Doug Sakmann from Troma, it's got great low-budget potential, and it tries...but just too hard. Everything is overly meant to be funny in this movie, and thats what brings it down. Everything tries to be too comic and goofy, by using intentional bad acting, an overuse of pointless deaths, and doing the same thing...over and over. It's basically 'Mulva: Zombie Ass-Kicker', 'Chairman of the Board', or any movie you have made with your friends: it's funny to those who made it, and that's about it.

Great potential, great idea, great use of effects-but it's the same thing...over and over: A band plays, a band dies, fans die. Everyone dies, blood is sprayed everywhere, the process is repeated.

The question is for these types of movies-which is basically 'bad slap-stick'-do they try too hard, or not at all?


It's amazing what you can do with little money. DEAD SILENT being a low budget movie delivers its promises.

Too bad we don't see Rob Lowe more often on the silver screen. Lowe is at its best in this riveting thriller . No wonder he went from DEAD SILENT straight to the TV mega hit The West Wing .

DEAD SILENT 8 out of 10

Sputtosi Toronto.


Well, you'd better if you plan on sitting through this amateurish, bland, and pokey flick about a middle-aged widowed mom who has a little more in common with her young adult or old teen daughter than she would like. Set in Tunis, mom piddles around the flat, gets antsy, and decides, albeit reluctantly (she just can't help herself), to don the costume and dance in a local cabaret. Meanwhile her daughter is taking dancing lessons. The common denominator is a Tunisian band drummer. This film is so full of filler I watched the DVD at x2 and read the subtitles, fast forwarding through much of the very ordinary dancing and loooong shots of walking (they walk everywhere) and more walking and just plain dawdling at x4 just to get though this boring, uneventful, low budget flick which some how garnered some pretty good critical plaudits. Go figure. (C-)


HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.

HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.

 **** out of 4 stars.


Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed 'La Casa' in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?


Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!

I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.


This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film.

The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.

The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention.

I gave this movie a 8/10 because some clichés.


I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)


I saw this movie in 1959 when I was 11 years old at a drive-in theater with my family.

Way back then, I thought it was very funny . . . even though I was too young to understand 90% of what makes this marvelous movie such a delight! I saw it again this morning on 'Turner South'. As I watched it, I was absolutely convulsed with laughter! 'The Mating Game' is a unique classic from a by-gone age. If you're too young to have experienced the enchanting period in history that produced this film, I feel very sorry for you. There's no way you can watch movies like this and understand how they can (even today) deliver such a delightful slice of heaven to 'old timers' like me.

Having said that, all I can do is respectfully request that younger people refrain from commenting on films like 'The Mating Game'.

Movies like this were made for the generation that preceded the current group of your people. And as such, these films speak a very different language than any of you can understand.

In other words  if you don't understand the issues the film is addressing, please don't embarrass yourself by offering comments which  frankly  make no sense.


I can't see how a film of this quality only gets an average of 5.7 from IMDb voters. It's a classic Australian production that resembles recent efforts such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES, THE SUGAR FACTORY, OCCASIONAL COARSE LANGUAGE, RUSSIAN DOLL, SAMPLE PEOPLE, THE SECRET LIFE OF US, LA SPAGNOLA, STRANGE PLANET, FRESH AIR, DUST OFF THE WINGS, DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE, etc..., as a 19-year-old uni student (Newton, in perhaps his best role yet, on par with CHANGI at least) with a bored, over-religious mother gets the shock of his life when she decides to enrol in the same course as him - and before you go thinking ANOTHER GOOFY MOVIE, it's not, there's some real substance here. Sure, it's a simplistic view of life in general and arts students in particular (but then they are rather simplistic under all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo aren't they?), and maybe the study of Sinead Cusack's character is a little muddled at times, but the film is bright, funny, and has some important messages. The principle cast is terrific: Cusack and Newton are wonderful, and Rose Byrne (see her also in THE GODDESS OF 1967) is so underrated it's not funny. She's a beautiful, fresh, confident actor who deserves every accolade she receives. I gave MY MOTHER FRANK 8/10.


They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as 'down boy', or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.


'Thriller' remains the greatest of the pop music promos to have a plot, great visuals, and a tip-top song to wrap the film around. Michael Jackson was at the top of the tree at this time (and not so altered in his plastic surgery regime for it to matter). Here he is in good form - the song is terrific, he leads the zombies in dance like no other.

Ola Ray plays the girl who watches with incredulity as her sweet boyfriend (Jackson, natch) turns into a werewolf! Then to the pulsing rhythms of the opening line 'It's close to midnight', he stomps around the graveyard with the other zombies and creatures of the night.

The crowning glory of all this is the fruity voice of the great horror star Vincent Price speaking in the middle of the record. Terrific.


Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.

Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.


The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of 'Drake & Josh' fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the 'Rick Punchers' joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.

We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.

We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.

We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.

The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.

We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the 'Douchebag Of The Year' award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).

Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one.


OK. First said, I just wanted to check whether this movie has an average rating below or exactly -1. But 5,9. This is sicker than any of the killers' proceedings -,- . That made me curious what people wrote here.. which in the end made me set up an account to give my 2cents of truth into this 'well of delusion' i find here.

How dare you guys even MENTION this movie in the same sentences as e.g. Seven? The only thing they got in common is that they show various crime-scenes. That-is-it. And 'Best thriller of 1999!' ? have you even watched another movie form that year? Or any other movie in your life at all? 1999 is not a year which people are reminded of by RESURRECTION... what's with actual MOVIES like 8mm, Eyes wide shut, Arlington Road, Double Jeopardy? (Theyre actually more a 'thriller' than this one could ever be..). Resurrection does not even deserve to be dedicated to A SECOND of 1999.

Really, you guys can't be serious. I watched that movie yesterday with my girlfriend, highly recommended by a friend of her. A 'great film with Christopher Lambert'! ...which I had not yet seen? Hmm..

Well, first look on the Covers: OK, nothing special. At second glimpse you don't need to have supernatural powers to be aware that they simply mirrored Lambert's head, clipped his nose 'n this&that, then made a fancy negative pattern on top of it, to get the killers image on the COVER. You could even think they had some apprentice eat a gallon of marshmallows just to caption that creepy (booooh! -.- ) mouth.. whatever. Turned it around and the plot starts with.. 'it's raining in Chicago... blabber blabber'. Come on, a six year old could have made that snippet sound more exciting. Now, with this enormous excitement coming from the movies terrific presentation -.- , you absolutely wanna start watching it. Because it can't be that bad, it still is Christopher Lambert. That assumption of mine was proved wrong. WIth 'proven wrong' i mean it was brutally executed by a deadly mix of the worst imaginable acting ever known to mankind (every actor, but the tops are the 'i can do 1-Liners!' police chief, Prudhommes Wife __ actually a better detective than Prudhomme when she recombines several incidents to a yet ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN hint in the case!!!! -.- __ and .. yes.. Prudhomme himself) featuring a squadron of inhuman fake feelings, logic errors in a 1-minute-cycle, light-years far-fetched conclusions which in my point-of-view represent an insult to any thinking human being and last but not least a camera-man who obviously was a hyperventilating kangaroo. Oh well, and if you do not completely shut down your brains (these aren't premises to watch it) then you should know who is who and what is what after max. 30minutes, simply because you know ANY scene after the first. That is thrilling. Thrilling because this movie almost makes you think you can tell the future.

The bottom line: This is BY FAR the worst movie I can remember. Trust me, I've seen many horrible movies which in some way were at least only bad attempts or bad copies of another movie. Resurrection however, is the best example on how to fail in every aspect possible. It was so bad that after being shocked by its unimaginably low quality in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I laughed more often than in any recent comedy, simply because I was fascinated by the crew's brazenness to publish such an -extraordinary- film strip. Good thing for Lambert he was in Highlander:Endgame a year later, thus he can be pardoned. ;^O

Anyhow, I DO recommend watching this movie to EVERYONE. In the end, we had great fun watching it :^D. I guarantee you, after you completely watched Resurrection (be brave, you can do it!) , you will worship the level of acting in any given daily soap.

Or just go 'n watch highlander one more time... that's what I'm gonna do.


I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.

Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.

I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.

Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead!


The Danes character finally let's Buddy have the awful truth. ''Leave me alone, kiss men if you want to,' she screams self-righteously in front of everyone, thus destroying the man who has been in love with her for so long. Nice girl. This might be the place to reconsider all of the giggly charm that Danes pours into this character. Great reason to feel sympathy for her lying in bed and dying, but hey, remember, there are no mistakes, except, maybe, seeing this film.

Wait a minute. This irony is intended! This is actually a masterpiece of ironic wit, yes! But somehow I doubt that's what the creators of this film had in mind, sadly. Maybe there are a few mistakes, after all.