Tashan - the title itself explains the nature of the movie.

This type of movies are actually made for flop. What a shame that Yash Raj Films produces such movies those are worthless than C-grade movies. Or even some C-grade movies have better and pleasing story than Tashan. The much hyped and over-confidently promoted Tashan poorly bombed at the box-office which it certainly deserved.

In my view, this is the worst movie ever made from honourable Yash Raj Films' banner. How come they handled such a heavy project to new Vijay Krishna Acharya who has no actual sense of making action flick? He tried to imitate Sanjay Gadhvi's ways of making like Dhoom but he suffered at last. The action scenes are more like than comics or cartoon movies made for exhausting the audiences.

The story also loses in its meaning and substances to tenderly win the audiences' hearts. In most scenes Anil Kapoor reminds me of southern Tamil star Rajnikant in his body languages and wordly expressions. I am not a fan of neither Saif nor Akshay, but the award of Kareena should have finally gone to Saif''s hand instead of Akshay. Just from the starting point I expected of it, but at the end it displeased me with the climax truth. Saif is the main behind the whole adventure, while Akshay joins in the midst. In any movie, the final should be judged with the whole characters of the entire story and the award or say reward should be given to the one who deserves credit. And Tashan loses in this way, and unexpectedly failed to become a hit.

Akshay's has nothing new to show off his comedian talent here but still reminds of his previous movies. He seriously need to form a new image to his fans that would impress them again and again. In between Saif did a great job in Race, and now he returned again in his hilarious nature through this movie. But he has fully developed himself in the acting field. And last but not the least about Kareena. She looks really hot with bikini dress of which some complain as she became too lean. But I myself don't think so, instead she became slim. Yes slim!!! it is a good factor for a female to attract the major people (or say, male). Beside them it is nice that Saif's son Ibrahim appears in the beginning & last as young Saif. I hope now he too will lean forward in target of making acting as his career.

Those who like this Tashan they are either mentally immatured or still want to go back to childhood, or say want to be admitted in an asylum. Thumbs down to debutante director Vijay Krishna Acharya who mishandled the project offered by Yash Raj Films. In future he should experiment and study the script minimum of 5 years before going into practical directions.

Sorry, I don't like to rate good stars to this type of junk movies.


`Europa' (or, as it is also known, `Zentropa') is one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The blend of grayscale and colour photography is near seamless... a true feast for the eyes. The picture was a contender for a 1991's Golden Palm in Canners. The award went to Barton Fink (by Coen brothers); a film stylistically very similar to Zentropa. Here's an exercise in class: rent both films and be a judge for yourself.


First off, I am critical of this movie because I really had high hopes and instead, this movie sucked.

*possible spoilers* (if you haven't seen the TV series) Where to begin??? Well, let's start at the quality. The movie was barely better than the original TV series and the two fight scenes were very nicely crafted. However the CGI was horrid.

Then there is the plot holes and questions that still remain after the whole movie is all said and done. This movie does not close off as a successful conclusion to a very broad universe known as FMA and only returns to expand the universe more before leaving us with nothing but our imaginations to decipher what would happen in the future.

And then there is the stories biggest fault. Adding WWII and Hitler... WHY ?? The series was perfect... and didn't need Hitler. It didn't even need Germany.

Overall the entire movie was sorely lacing in what a true FMA movie could have been and if I were the directors, I'd scrap CoS and make a new, more 'ending', ending.


'My child, my sister, dream

How sweet all things would seem

Were we in that kind land to live together,

And there love slow and long,

There love and die among

Those scenes that image you, that sumptuous weather.'

Charles Baudelaire

Based on the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim, 'Enachanted April' can be described in one sentence  it takes place in the early 1920s when four London women, four strangers decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April. It is the correct description but it will not prepare you for the fact that 'Enchanted April' - an ultimate 'feel good' movie is perfection of its genre. Lovely and sunny, tender and peaceful, kind and magical, it is like a ray of sun on your face during springtime when you want to close your eyes and smile and stop this moment of serene happiness and cherish it forever. This is the movie that actually affected my life. I watched it during the difficult times when I was lost, unhappy and very lonely, when I had to deal with the sad and tragic events and to come to terms with some unflattering truth about myself. It helped me to regain my optimism and hope that anything could be changed and anything is possible. I had promised to myself then that no matter what, I would pull myself out of misery and self-pity and I would appreciate every minute of life - with its joy and its sadness...I promised myself that I would go to Italy and later that year I did and I was not alone.

Charming, enchanting, and heartwarming, 'Enchanted April' is one of the best movies ever made and my eternal love. This little film is a diamond of highest quality.


This movie could have been great. It is not in my opinion. The storyline is fragmented, the editor appears not to be able to choose between a Guy Ritchie-style of storytelling and a more straightforward one. There is a great emphasis on excessive violence, including torture. Too much so if you ask me. The characters are very shallow and stereo-typed, I would have liked to see more depth there. It is hard to identify with the main character. As a result the movie remains shallow as a whole.

The movie says it gives the spectator an inside view of the British criminal underclass, more in particular the Essex underclass. Football-hooligans, steroids, cocaine, heroine and violence, lots and lots of violence. Violence resulting from paranoia and fear in general. In this movie no-one seems to use his (or her) brain, we're looking at a bunch of animals in clothes. Like I said, there is not much of a plot and the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired.

If you're a male below 30, like gore and hardcore violence and think that's entertaining, than this is a movie for you. If you're looking for a movie portraying real people with a well developed storyline, suspense and depth, well... you can skip this one.


Imagine you have the opportunity to see yourself again as a kid. Now think what would happen if you had the chance to speak with your younger self, or even change him/you. Would you try to influence or try to change your younger self's beliefs in light of your future experience? Or perhaps the encounter would change your older self's perception of life and reality?

Walt Disney's The Kid tries to engage this complex thought by putting 'older self' Bruce Willis in a collision course with 'younger self' Spenser Breslin (from The Santa Clause 2 and The Cat in the Hat 'fame'). The result is a sometimes funny sometimes touching encounter, which makes you ponder about your own past, present and future  and truly believe it is never too late to change your course.


This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.

A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever.


In 'Black Snake Moan,' writer-director Craig Brewer is so obsessed with heavy symbolism that part of me felt like dismissing the entire film as pretentious--a sweltering Southern parable with some oh-so-risky subject matter. The movie also contains a heavy spiritual subtext where religion is being hauled into the picture--again, this is integrated without subtlety. After the darker opening scenes, the film increasingly blunts its edge until the entire production comes off with the artificial quality of a stage play (and I'll admit, the last 15 minutes go way too far into 'Happy Ending' territory for my liking). And that's not to mention the archival footage of musician Son House, ruminating on love and death (and heavily foreshadowing things to come, of course). Yet in a strange way, these demerits are also qualities of 'Black Snake Moan,' the tale of aging Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson), recently dumped by his wife (for his brother, no less), who comes across near-death nympho Rae (Christina Ricci, easily giving the hottest portrayal of trailer trash on celluloid ever); nursing the girl back to health, he chains her to his radiator to overcome her demons, and hopefully redeem his own fallen self. While there is a definite prurient appeal in watching Ricci fall out of her skimpy outfits, her performance is risky and mature--not a trace of Wednesday Addams to be found, and she easily holds her own with Jackson, who personifies 'the blues' in his portrait of a flawed, God-fearing man. While heavy-handed, the scene where Lazarus sings Rae a song in the midst of a lightning storm/blackout is compelling, as is a scene inside a jumping blues club that makes you wish you were there. The setting is strong, and a case can be made for the literal symbolism (the chain, the radiator, the strange blurry man who haunts Rae's libido) being a deliberate outgrowth of superstition and spirituality. And it is the conviction with which this spirituality is played that lends 'Black Snake Moan' much of its strength--the committed performances of Jackson and Ricci make this a film that goes from wrenching to uplifting with, well, seamless grace. While Justin Timberlake's jealous lover is a plot contrivance I could have done without, neither he nor the sledgehammer subtlety can keep this from being a fascinatingly meditative film.


Another popular screening for a British picture at Coalville's Century Theatre. A well crafted, solid drama with an ever developing plot and ongoing 'twists in the tale'...as the lies piled up! A masterclass of acting by a flawless cast, well marshaled by first time director Julian Fellowes. Outstanding performance, as usual, by Tom Wilkinson but good turns by all concerned including supporting actors Linda Bassett and John Neville. Our audience was engrossed by this film, which includes a couple of shock incidents which really make you 'jump'. A good tight production at around only 80 minutes, probably produced on a very limited budget, but a success, which should see Fellowes directing again for the big screen. Some publicity for the film seemed to suggest it was set in the 50s (as per Nigel Balchin's novel)but obviously this is not the case. Recommended viewing.


Good work by everyone, from scriptwriters, director, and cast; a lovely fun film that becomes believable for sentimental reasons only; a good film for television on those cloudy, cold wintry days when you just want to sit back and enjoy.


Mad scientist Professor Tabani drinks a potion he has brewed up in his laboratory but is turned into a blood craving vampire instead.When Dr.Aqil pays a visit Tabani sees a picture of Aqil's wife Shabnam and,after turning Aqil into a vampire,heads for Shabnam to make her his bride.Aqil's brother discovers the grave of the vampire and his brother at Tabani's castle and kills his brother with a knife to free his soul.Tabani succeeds in putting the bite on Shabnam and once turned she tries to lure her young niece away.Aqil's brother races against time to put a stop to the vampire curse.'Zinda Laash' almost put me to sleep.The plot is extremely slow but more or less follows Bram Stoker's famous novel.The suspense is completely absent as is the gore and nudity.The film is only recommended for curious horror fans that want to see the second horror film made in Pakistan(after 'Madman' from 1964).


Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...

During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.

1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.

It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.

If the producers changed the name of the contest to 'Last Clown Standing', all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?


This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no 'whodunit' to care about!


I watched this film in shire joy.

This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.

All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.

The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.

And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.

If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all.


... but I enjoyed this show anyway. I've been reading some of the comments prior reviewers have had to say about this show, and I'm having a hard time completely nullifying all the criticism in my own head (except one: that the show was stale; this program was ANYTHING but stale). A lot of the stuff people take issue with about this show is on the money: pretentious; forced; overwrought; desperate for attention; self-satisfied; annoying ever-present narration. But you know what? I really liked it. It was different, it was original, it really, really TRIED; and that made up for all the minuses. The show was bright, verbal, quick, witty, interesting, fun to look at ... you know, it was only on once a week, I could take it once a week and look forward to it and enjoy it. I will mourn its passing. But I guess nobody will be bringing this back to life.


Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw 'Breakfast of Champions' and 'Hotel Rwanda'. But the film brought me a pleasant surprise. Of course Nolte was great, but so was the plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - but with the help of excellent acting and photography, this film manages.

There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.


Around the late 1970's, animator Don Bluth, frustrated with the output his company, Disney was churning, defected from the Mouse House to form his own studio. His first production, THE SECRET OF NIMH, was a brilliant feature that still holds up well to this day. This was followed by AN American TAIL and THE LAND BEFORE TIME, both of which were made under the involvement of Steven Spielberg and were commercially successful. Although none of those two films had the dark adult appeal of NIMH, they still are very charming, enjoyable features for both children and grown-ups. But before long, Don Bluth had his first major misfire with ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN; critics were especially harsh on this film, and matters weren't helped by the fact that it opened alongside Disney's THE LITTLE MERMAID.

Considering that the movie has such a friendly-sounding title, one would expect ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN to be pleasant family fare. Instead Bluth provides a surprisingly dark story involving gambling, deceit, crime, mistreatment, and murder. That itself is not a problem for an animated feature per say, but it does call into question over whether the film is for children. On the other hand, it's hard to say whether adults will find much to enjoy in ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN. In short, it's a movie with a major identity crisis.

Set in a dreary junkyard of New Orleans, the movie starts out when Charlie B. Barkin, a rough-and-tumble German shepherd, is run over by a car courtesy of his former gambling casino partner, a nasty, cigar-puffing pitbull, Carface. Before you know it, Charlie finds himself in heaven, albeit by default. Here a whippet angel, Annabelle, tells him that 'all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are usually loyal and kind.' This line represents the confused nature of the movie, since the dogs in the movie, the whippet aside, are presented as anything but.

Upon realizing that he's been murdered, Charlie steals his way back to Earth and plots to get even with Carface. With the reluctant help of his dachshund pal Itchy, Charlie 'rescues' Carface's prize, AnneMarie, a human girl who can talk to animals (in order to predict who will win the rat races). Charlie claims that he will help the little cutie find her a family, but in reality he is using her skills to win fortunes at the race so that he can build a more elaborate casino of his own to bring Carface down. Although he refuses to admit it, Charlie does grow to love AnneMarie...

The concept of the story isn't as problematic as the execution. Aside from the human girl AnneMarie and a flamboyant musical alligator who appears about three-quarters through (with the vocal pipes of Ken Page), none of the other characters emerge as likable, nor frankly, are even worth caring about. Unfortunately, that also applies to Charlie; in trying to make him an anti-hero, the script (composed by more than ten writers) only succeeds in rendering the character TOO unlovable. As such, the audience feels no empathy for Charlie, and worse, his redemption at the end of the movie does not come across as convincing. (Further damaging to the character is the disappointingly uncharismatic vocal performance from Burt Reynolds.) Besides the lack of an endearing lead, the movie's other problem is in the structure of the story. The slowly-paced plot jumps all over the place and makes a habit of throwing in extra scenes which serve no purpose but to pad out the movie's running time. The aforementioned musical alligator (who resides in a danky sewer infested with native rats) seems to have been thrown in from nowhere, as does a scene where Charlie tries to show his generosity to AnneMarie by feeding a pack of pastel-colored pups pizza. The whole screenplay feels like a rough first draft; a bit more polish could have made this a tighter, impactful story.

Matters are not helped by the lackluster musical numbers by Charlie Strouse and T.J. Kuenster (AnneMarie's song and the gator's ballad are the only good ones; the latter in particular benefits from Ken Page's mellifluous vocal) or the uneven voice cast. As mentioned, Burt Reynolds' stiff and lifeless Charlie detracts from his already unlikeable character even further (the only exception is a fiery confession to Itchy about his true intentions toward the end). Dom DeLuise as Itchy is pretty good, but he's had better roles, notably Tiger in AN American TAIL and Jeremy in THE SECRET OF NIMH. Ken Page, as mentioned, is awesome in anything he does, but his character has such a small part that his overall contribution is unremarkable at best. Similarly wasted are Loni Anderson (as a collie who once sired a litter with Charlie), Melba Moore, and Charles Nelson Reilly. Judith Barsi as AnneMarie is probably the only voice that comes across as truly memorable, partially because her character is the sole legitimately likable one in this depressing and joyless show.

Barsi aside, the only real positive about ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN is the animation. Technically, this film has some of the most imaginative visuals from Bluth's team (by 1980's standards, that is), particularly a frightening scene where Charlie has a nightmare about ending up in a fiery underworld ruled by a gargantuan satanic canine-demon. If anything, the movie is more of a triumph of animation than storytelling.

On the whole, however, I cannot recommend ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN as good entertainment. Even though I recognize that the movie has its fans and the climax does admittingly provide some energy and a moving conclusion, the overall package is not in the same league as Bluth's better efforts. Animation buffs will marvel at the lush artistry, but by the time it's over, ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN could very well leave a bad taste in your mouth.


Its perhaps unfair of me to comment on this film , because , for the first time ever , I switched off a movie because it was so bad. I can watch anything , but this movie was so very boring. I was bored before I put on the DVD and thought this might be a laughable action horror/ action movie to lighten the mood. It is not even that , it is a device which increases the level of boredom by the power of 100. Had to switch it off after 45 minutes because all that had happened in that time was some people had been scuba diving , and a big mole had been discovered. Seriously , this movie is not worth the time, even if you can enjoy a bad movie like i can , avoid this film like the plague.Worst thing I have seen in years.


What a bad, bad movie! I tried watching without fast forwarding...That failed. After about 30 minutes I stopped the movie, went on-line to see how many minutes this disaster was. (Only 84 minutes, Whew!) It was a confusing, boring movie. I don't think anyone can get knocked down by getting hit with a fluorescent bulb much less gutted by one!! The one funny thing is that I watched 'The Killer Cut' version of the movie. The box boldly states 'More Blood!' 'More Sex!' 'More Terror than the theatrical release!' Yikes! If this movie was horrible with all those claims I wonder just how lame the 'UN-Killer Cut' was??? If you want to see a great movie about the world of the living & the world of the dead watch any of The Night of the Living Dead series!!


This early role for Barbara Shelley(in fact,her first in Britain after working in Italy),was made when she was 24 years old,and it's certainly safe to say that she made a stunning debut in 1957's 'Cat Girl.' While blondes and brunettes get most of the attention(I'll always cherish Yutte Stensgaard),the lovely auburn-haired actress with the deep voice always exuded intelligence as well as vulnerability(one such example being 1960's 'Village of the Damned,' in which her screen time was much less than her character's husband,George Sanders).She is the sole reason for seeing this drab update of 'Cat People,' and is seen to great advantage throughout(it's difficult to say if her beauty found an even better showcase).Her character apparently sleeps in the nude,and we are exposed to her luscious bare back when she is awakened(also exposed 8 years later in 1965's 'Rasputin-The Mad Monk').The ravishing gown she wears during most of the film is a stunning strapless wonder(I don't see what held that dress up,but I'd sure like to).All in all,proof positive that Barbara Shelley,in a poorly written role that would defeat most actresses,rises above her material and makes the film consistently watchable,a real test of star power,which she would find soon enough at Hammer's studios in Bray,for the duration of the 1960's.


This is one of the most cerebral insightful movies I have ever seen. The script language, costumes, scenery, plot, characters, etc. all are supreme. You will not be bored. I have watched intensely or even just listened to this movie while working so many times I have lost count. Scarlett ages gracefully, acquiring wisdom beyond her years in the end. This movie takes you from Tara to Ireland where her family is originally from and you see the results of another civil war played out there, this time between the Irish and English.

This movie depicts the double standards of men at the time--a man is still respected if he has girlfriends and whores, but not a woman. If she is merely seen in a private place with a man society accuses her of impropriety. And of course Scarlett was always thinking outside the box, breaking rules when necessary to create needed change, help people, and/or survive.

Scarlett's beauty definitely is to the bone. Her strength, self-esteem, and wisdom grow as she ages.

I remember her lines when I am confronted with too much on my plate, such as, 'tomorrow is another day,' and the way she carried herself, her determination and courage, and have learned from her experiences. This is a good movie to show your daughters as it teaches a woman how important it is to have respect for yourself, and that men, especially very handsome ones, can have two sides and may treat a woman differently, depending on how she acts and respects herself. An attractive woman needs to learn what this movie teaches.

This movie is like therapy to me, and it is better than Gone with the Wind. The second part takes place in Ireland and anyone who is of Irish decent will cherish the scenery, people, and Scarlett's character within it.


I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.

John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.

Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84' diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera.


I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.


The power to dream is a wonderful thing. There's a saying, 'Not all dreamers achieve, but all achievers dream.' By exploring our imagination we shape our own futures. Or build empires. Perhaps overcome our fears, limitations and obstacles. Gain wisdom and benefit mankind. Or (put simply) just find our way to true love and happiness. Freud might express such things in symbols. The language of fantasy.

Tristan ventures out of a rather twee English village called Wall. He goes through a break in the wall. A portal. In search of something that will prove his love to Victoria (Sienna Miller). Victoria doesn't take him very seriously. So he pledges to bring back a falling star.

Stormhold is the world outside the wall. He discovers the fallen star has taken the form of a beautiful girl, Yvaine (Claire Danes). To complicate matters, three evil witches want to get hold of Yvaine. If they can eat her heart, it will replenish their youth. (One of the witches is played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who does fabulous young-old transformations of looks and manner.) The 'good guy' they meet on their way is Captain Shakespeare (Robert de Niro). He has a fierce, swashbuckling pirate exterior but is a sweetie closet queen underneath. Heirs of Stormhold meanwhile are engaged in a pitched battle over inheriting the Kingdom. Ricky Gervais is an added extras. A buffoon trader throwing in standard Gervais-type gags well. Tristan's purity of spirit arouses the love of Yvaine, so there is a nice little triangle going. Till he achieves the maturity to discern pedestal divas from real women.

Stardust is a full-on, large scale fantasy that does credit to its myriad stars. Wholly positive, and written with a clarity that makes it more worthy of psychoanalysis that a coven full of Harry Potter romps. Production values rival Hollywood, and the storyline is free of the racial stereotyping, misogyny, religious or class agendas than shape and pervert so many large scale fantasies.

That is not to say that Stardust is without its faults. Plot and dialogue have many predictable elements, and the fairytale quality may be too saccharine for some audiences. But if you want an excuse to let your heart fly, this film may well provide it.

As a boy, I remember listening in wonder to albums by the Moody Blues (who practiced in a house not far from where I lived). They made records with names like 'In Search of the Lost Chord,' and wrote lyrics like, 'Thinking is the best way to travel.' I would fill my head with books on magic and mystery, from Timothy Leary to Aleister Crowley. Shaping dreams. Learning to make them real. Nowadays people might talk of NLP or positive thinking. Adults that remember how to dream with the force of youth but with the vision and application of maturity. Do you still enjoy that feeling?

You are advised not to wait for Stardust on DVD. See it on the biggest cinema screen you can find. And Dolby Digital Surround Sound if you can get it. The actors look like they had a ball. Maybe you will too.


Carlos Mencia is not funny. From his stand up specials to this train wreck of a TV series, Carlos Mencia is not funny. I have been trying to convince people for two years that he steals other comedians' jokes, and as far as his comedy material goes, he is a regular 'Johnny-come-lately' with far less than sub-par results. Psycho astronaut jokes? Britney Spears breakdown jokes? I hope this is only a scheduling error, but come on Carlos and Comedy Central, those topics, and many others, have run the gamut of late night TV show hosts' opening monologues, Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and many, many others. Lampooning ethnic and racial stereotypes? Comedy stands no chance of evolving with Carlos Mencia around. Perhaps people, especially viewers and Comedy Central executives will get the point since this week's issue of 'New York' magazine accurately labeled him: 'Carlos Mencia, unrepentant joke-filcher.'


This movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).

Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.

If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.


and totally non-scary film. The characters doesn't interest at all, and most of the time is spent in a car. The dog is at best ugly, never really scary. To interest, a more threatening menace would have been needed, at least a few people you care for and evokes some emotions in you. And, not the least, something interesting must happen. Something unexpected. As it is, this film just drags on and on, in what seems like forever. Maybe a Saint Bernhard was not that smart to choose as the Terrible Threat to life and society?

In most scary movies/thrillers/mystery, just whatever genre, there must be characters that sparks interest and makes you want to know what happens. Here you really don't care, you just wait for it all to stop, and wondering if it wouldn't be better to see something else. One of the weakest King adaptations.


I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.

All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.

A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon.


In 'Hoot', a new kid arrives to Florida from Montana. He first faces the usual problems of blending in and dealing with the local bully. Soon, though, he becomes aware of a bigger problem: a franchise restaurant chain is trying to build a site in the town, right where a number of burrowing owls live. This movie has the look of a family film, but it is pretty more radical than it seems, as it shows sympathetically how Roy and a couple of friends do not shy away from lawbreaking (including vandalism of private property and briefly kidnapping the manager of the chain of restaurants) in the name of environmentalism (to save owls, no less). Now, one might agree or not with those actions, but at least the movie has the courage from not shying away from its convictions. A good, solid film, all in all.


This review contains spoilers.

I was searching through horror movie DVDs on Amazon when I came across Flight Of The Living Dead. I already knew from the name that it was going to be abysmally naff and most probably a rip-off of Snakes On A Plane, but it was selling brand new for 69p so I figured I didn't really have much to lose.

The music played over the opening credits didn't fit at all, although I did like the song itself a pop-rock song isn't really suitable to appear on the soundtrack of a zombie horror movie. It started off surprisingly well, the opening scenes weren't too bad, some of the acting was a little cringe-worthy but not as bad as I initially thought it would be.

It all goes well until Laura Cayouette (Rocket from Kill Bill: Vol. 2) enters the picture. She is supposed to be playing a scientist. If she is, she's not a very bright one. Luckily she's polished off pretty quickly.

I actually physically laughed out loud when the camera panned over the passengers of the plane during some turbulence. There was a nun. Have you ever been on a plane with a nun!? I was surprised she wasn't clutching a crucifix.

Finally, after 35 minutes, we get to some zombie action, and use the word 'action' loosely. The special effects are pretty below standard, but that's to be expected from a movie with this budget. Being covered in blood and having yellow contact lenses does not make you look like a zombie though, it makes you look pretty amusing. Using slow motion doesn't work particularly well either. I think this movie is probably guilty of trying to add too much story. Trying to pass off the problem as a variant of the 'malaria virus' wasn't an especially good move either considering malaria isn't a virus.

The rest of the movie pretty much plays out like any other zombie movie. Most of the characters are killed off and it eventually ends up with a handful of people fighting to stay alive. Possibly the worst part of Flight Of The Living Dead is the utterly inconceivable ending. I know it's a movie about people who come back to life and feast on the living, but the ending was just ridiculous. Rating: ★★


Unfortunately, Jean Eustache (1938-1981) belongs like so many once leading French film makers nowadays to the great unknown ones whose movies are hard to find and are not released on international DVDs. Since we have a good old-fashioned video-store in Tucson, I had the chance to watch this 3 1/2-hour marathon masterwork that is not boring for ten seconds.

Since we speak here about one of the most discussed (and most controversially discussed) movies of all times, let me tell you my impression that the endless dialogs, originally typical for the early 'Nouvelle Vague' of a Jacques Rivette or Alain Resnais appear almost ridiculous in this movie. The dialogs are basically monologues, mainly the longest ones spoken by Jean-Pierre Léaud. The most characteristic feature is that the intersections of the speeches of two people is almost zero. Léaud, or his character, Alexandre, pleases to tell more about himself than about the topics he is seemingly to speak. Therefore, one can hardly speak about communication in this movie. It is well possible that the director had a gargantuan satire in mind against the idle running of the once so hotly discussed political and sociological ideas, but the type of man Alexandre exists to all times, we find him already in Petron's 'Satiricon', which work has actually great resemblance with 'The Mother and the Whore'.

Alexandre does not only nothing, but he has developed an own kind of metaphysics about the absence of acting, at least acting in the sense of responsibility toward the society whose part he is. He mocks at the people who run to work at 7 c'clock in the morning, when he is just busy having his last drink before he goes to bed in the apartment of one of his girlfriends from whose money he lives. He is unable to speak one sentence without quoting one of the leading thinkers between Nietzsche and Bernanos. Especially Sartre who is shown quickly in the French intellectual café 'Aux Deux Magots', where Alexandre, too, is sitting all day, must serve as excuse for the life-style of Alexandre and his colleagues, because they suffer existential crisis from bourgeois nausea. However, the intellectual speeches of Alexandre seem to be rather pseudo-intellectual, and the sentences and quips he cites seem to come rather from a dictionary of quotations than from his actual reading of the respective books.

It is true: This movie demands an extremely broad European knowledge, especially the connoisseurship of French existentialist philosophy and there consequences to the 68 student revolution movement, but if you have this knowledge, than you will enjoy 215 minutes of your life by staring amazed into the TV and crying out with laughing like you have probably not done it since a long time.


Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for 'Glory Enough for All', a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was 'Danger UXB'. A series about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your local library.

Pete


The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.

Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks 'But what about the weekends?' Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: 'Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?' But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.

We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!

And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?

But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.

To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.

I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised 'no guns, no drugs, no corsets.' I thought, 'great'. But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: 'I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!'

It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.


In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).

It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.

However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.

I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.

One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.


It's interesting that someone made a comparison of the 'Fifth Missile' to the Star Trek episode. It should be pointed out that the original Star Trek TV episode in which the crew of the Enterprise undergoes a space madness while orbiting planet Si 2000 is entitled 'The Naked Time', not the 'Naked Now'. The 'Naked Now' refers to the first regular Star Trek The Next Generation episode in which the Enterprise-D encounters a science vessel. This episode, though, does refer to and is based on the 'Naked Time' original series one.

Now, to the Firth Missile. While the reactions of the crew in the Star Trek episodes were based on those similar to alcohol intoxication, the crew's condition on board the Montana was caused by a much more serious situation, namely the paint vapors emitted by the faulty bulkhead finish. There are few places where such a reaction could have more serious consequences than among a crew who has responsibilities as serious as a crew on a ballistic missile submarine, and of course this is what makes the film so suspenseful and such a thriller. The plot is very believable. At the same time, this film, along with 'Crimson Tide', 'The Day After', 'By Dawn's Early Light', 'The Hunt For Red October', 'Ice Station Zebra', and many other similar movies give us much insight into how easily things could go wrong and just how easy it could be for a nuclear holocaust to begin. Thankfully such an event has not occurred and (God willing) such an event will not happen.


When John Singleton is on, he's *on*!! And this is one of his better films. Not quite as tight as Boyz-n-the-Hood, but close to it (and with much of the same stellar cast). This film was very well written, very well put together, and very well shot. There's very little to criticize, and most of my complaints are superficial (eg: where did Fudge get the money for 6 years of college and a lot of expensive stuff? No mention of a rich background... And why doesn't Professor Phibbs have an office? A professor of his stature *should* have one... And while we're at it, for an engineering student, hick or not, Remy's a pretty dumb character - I'd think that he'd have a bit more in the way of basic intelligence - he talks and acts like a total buffoon).

But that aside, the film was very sharp. A good array of characters and points of view; and Singleton doesn't take sides in the story - many of the characters are unsympathetic, and he does a good job of interspersing the Panthers and Supremacist scenes together to show the folly on both sides.

Much of the cinematography was excellent; I especially loved the scene where Kirsty Swanson gets intimate with Taryn and Wayne each scene spliced together really well. Also the Malik/Deja scenes were really well shot as well.

The dialogue was a bit much at times; this film had a tendency to get *really* preachy at times, and it also tends to hammer the points it was making over your head when the points would be just as clear with out the bluntness (we really didn't need the US flag with 'UNLEARN' typed onto it, give some credit, we're not morons...). And to top it off, although *most* of the time Singleton uses melodrama quite well, sometimes it gets *way* too cheezy (like Deja's death, which is fine until she screams out 'WHY!!!' which simply ruined the entire effect and scene).

But the acting, in general, was top of the line. Fabulous performances by Omar Epps (perhaps the best I've ever seen), Kirsty Swanson (who knew Buffy could act??), Michael Rapaport (surprised the hell out of me...after True Romance and Beautiful Girls I though he was a one-role actor), and of course Ice Cube and Laurence Fishburne are *always* outstanding.

Downside? Jennifer Connelly was flat; though it's not completely her fault: her role was stereotypical and one-dimensional. Generic to the highest degree. And Tyra Banks, who had the role, was nothing short of horrid. She whined and whined and whined. Yet another in the long line of models-turned-actresses who failed miserably (though there are a few who prove the exception to this rule).

Finally, the soundtrack! Wow! An amazing soundtrack (which is definitely worth buying!) which fits the film like a glove. Each scene has a twin song (although the Tori Amos songs started to *really* annoy me by the end...not her best work). Liz Phair, Rage Against the Machine, Ice Cube...how can one go wrong??

All in all: a really good watch, a really strong cast, great script, great film. 8/10.


This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.


Film follows four friends from the 1950s (when they're in high school) up to 1981. They are Danilo (Craig Wasson) a Yugoslavian immigrant; Georgia (Jodi Thelan) a 'free spirit'; David (Michael Huddleston) who has no personality and Tom (Jim Metzler) a big, strong, handsome, rugged guy. All three of them are in love with Georgia but she only loves Danilo. The film mostly focuses on those two--it chronicles their lives, love and attraction to each other over the years. It also gets into Danilo trying to win the love of his tough immigrant father.

I love this film but it's not without its bad points. Thelan's high, squeaky voice is annoying (but you get used to it); the story jumps around very quickly; Tom and David's lives are never explained (Tom shows up with a Vietnamese wife and kids and David has a wife we never meet until the end); some crucial scenes are badly written and there's some obvious pre-release cutting (probably to keep the film at 2 hours).

But everything else is so good you can easily forget the problems. The story is compelling--you really get to know and understand the characters and always get caught up in the lives. With a few exceptions, the script (by Steve Tesich) is good--in fact, Tesich was a Yugoslavian immigrant himself and based much of the script on his own experiences. All the acting is great--especially Thelan and Wasson--also Reed Birney throws in a strong, likable performance as Louie, Danilo's college roommate. And Lois Smith is very interesting in her role. And look quick for Mercedes Ruehl and Glenne Headly!

Basically, it's a real great story about immigrants, coming of age, love of America and covers the 50-80s perfectly.

This film was (unjustly) maligned on its release. The studio didn't know how to advertise it (it IS a hard film to market) and the critics stomped on it (Pauline Kaels' review in 'The New Yorker' was particularly harsh). It barely played in theaters (I was lucky enough to catch it in 1981 in its short theatrical run) and has simply disappeared. That's a shame. This is a movie that is just ripe for reissue. I'm not betting on it--but you never know! A definite 10 all the way!


The person's comment that said that Pat Robertson is evil and his program is evil has nothing to compare what evil and righteous is. His definition of evil is the opposite of evil. The Bible itself says that in the last days people will call good evil and evil good! He doesn't even know that he fulfilled Bible prophecy! If you don't know God and refuse to know him now, that's okay. He still loves you but when you do finally bow your knee to Him, and you will, it will be too late for you. God sends no one to hell, not even you! You will go there of your own decision and your spewing defines it! May God have mercy on you and give you a Damascus Road experience. The 700 Club and Pat Robertson's ministry is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the edge of alcoholism, adultery, and probably death, God reached through the TV screen and used Pat Robertson to do it, and thank God He did! You have a right to say what you said but you don't have a right to curse with your words. God have mercy on you.


When one stops to recollect upon the frequent on screen teaming of Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland, 'They Died With Their Boots On' (1941) is most likely the film remembered best. It is the sweeping saga of General Custer (Flynn) - told from the time he enters West Point military academy and falls for the luscious Elizabeth Bacon (DeHavilland), through his tenure during the American Civil War, and finally with his death at Little Big Horn. Director, Raoul Walsh mounts his historical epic on the laurels of highly questionable recanting of historical texts, rewritten by screen writers Wally Kline and Aeneas MacKenzie, until truth and fiction are warped all out of proportion. Hence, the battle against Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) is portrayed as a crooked deal between politicians - California Joe (Charley Grapewin) and a spuriously absent corporation which wants to reclaim the land Custer gave to the Indians through the systematic genocide of the Nation's first peoples.

Flynn, who cleverly plays Custer as though he is one part Arnold Schwartzenegger to two parts Albert Schweitzer, has never been more ignoble. He literally oozes charm and sex appeal from every pore that easily melts the heart of his loyal heroine. Resident Warner stock players, Arthur Kennedy and Sidney Greenstreet deliver marvelous cameos that appear to have far more depth and character than is actually written into the material for them.

Overall, then, despite its loose rendering of history in favor of a good romantic yarn, 'They Died With Their Boots On' is ample film fodder for a Saturday matinée or Sunday night cooing with one's sweetheart. Warner's DVD is pretty nice looking. Although film grain is often obvious, the gray scale has been very nicely rendered with deep, solid blacks and very clean whites. Some fading is obvious during scene transitions. The audio has been very nicely cleaned up and is presented at an adequate listening level.


The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: 'This is almost too beautiful.' And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does.


You'd think a movie about incestuous sisters who eventually murder their employer couldn't help but be gripping, but then you'd be wrong.

There is no plot. There is no character development. There is no redeeming visual beauty.

This movie is a waste of time. The exploration of how the relationship between the sisters develops is nil, their sexuality is never anything but a grotesque, the class relationships are glossed over, and employer is a silly caricature.

Ponderous silences and period clothing do not equal depth of meaning.


I thought this was a very daring representation of the old hokey 'Tarzan' concept made so popular by Hollywood, Weismuller, et al.

Yes; there is a lot of silly stuff. But then, the idea is silly. It is almost unbelievable that a human baby could be sired to adulthood by chimpanzees. I am tempted to say completely unbelievable, but that the concept has never been tried. And there is certainly a bit too much anthropomorphism for comfort. Though under the circumstances I can see how that would be very difficult to avoid. We also now have a much greater insight into the issues of acculturation, and know that a human raised from infancy without human behavioural prompts would ultimately never learn them in adulthood.

Still, if you can get your head around that lot, there's a great deal to admire that is both imaginative and daring. Lambert does the beast thing with tremendous aplomb. I am tempted to say that it is the most convincing and sympathetic role I have seen him play. There are plenty of other excellent performances too. Not least of which are Sir Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm.

What is particularly disturbing - and rightly so - is the simian perception of humans. We get to see ourselves almost from the point of view of the poor, dumb, helpless brutes over whom we so routinely lord it. And it demonstrates well how the phony 'civilisation' and 'morality' with which we cloak and justify our conduct, is no more than an expression of own selfishness and arrogance. It may seem a little overstated at times, especially in the hideous museum dissection rooms, but what we see isn't just a truth about the Victorians; its a truth about the way we are today. It's one that needs to be stated, and cannot be stated often enough. Holm's character's obsession with the 'ray-zor' as a symptom of civilisation - as if to possess facial hair were a primitive condition to be scorned - is an excellent case in point. Primitive bearded readers take note.

The story is depressing. Ultimately it's a tragedy. Because even though he returns to the jungle and the freedom from moral tyranny that is truly human 'civilisation'; we know he's doomed. Before the third millennium is 50 years old, wild simians will be hunted into extinction as bush meat, and their environment developed for agriculture and mineral exploitation to gratify insatiable human excess.

In the end, it's a tale about ourselves. The path to extinction that other simians tread, must eventually be followed by humans.

Highly recommended for its ethical take, despite the hokey moments.


I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys


I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la 'Meet the feebles' But no - its wholesome clean fun.

jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.

If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!

Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!


First of all, since I'm one of the people who never saw the MST3K chopped up version of this movie, I can't comment on that.

However, I DID see the original version of this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel and I thought it was just as good as anything else on that Channel. In fact, I thought it was one of their better offerings.

I've noticed in perusing the comments here that the people who write in detail about SOULTAKER with a modicum of intelligence, thoughtfulness and maturity tend to like at least a FEW things about this movie and rightly so. In it's original cut, most reasonable people I think would probably rate it at least 4 or 5 stars out of 10. Five is average to me and I think this movie is about average for a Sci Fi pic.

In contrast to the above, I've also noticed that the reviewers who seem immature, dull and flip and as a result come off as boneheads from where I stand, are the same ones who can't find anything good about this movie and basically trash it without cause based MOSTLY on seeing it chopped up and fricasseed on MST3K. Or if they have seen both cuts it seems they were greatly prejudiced by the MST3K viewing to begin with.


I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone 'badass' in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.

The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.

Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad.

The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.

4/10


This is one odd film. It seems to be aimed at a younger audience, but is filled with sexual innuendos. The whole premise is rather absurd, not just the idea of some shrunken heads of three dead kids doing some crime fighting, but the same said kids taking on a gang of tough older guys is a little far-fetched, but then again, the parents are mainly absent in the film and there is a lack of authority figures to keep the kids in line.

The cast are good though, Meg Foster plays a very butch mafia-like leader, with the handsome A.J. Damato as the leader of the bullies. Aerky Egan and Rebecca Herbst are well cast as the young lovers, though for a comic actress of her talent, Leigh Allyn Baker is notoriously wasted in this film.

Overall, the film is unusual, but I don't think that is enough to make up for the poor quality and bumbling execution. The scenery is all rather dull and the 'special effects' quite dismal. Sit this one out, unless your in the mood.


ok, i am really into King's stuff, but this is just dreadful. the whole movie, i am waiting for the main character to do something profound with his new youth and power. i can tolerate the worst of movies, as anything is better than watching a cut movie with commercials in it. but this takes the cake. i gave it a 2, and i would never recommend it to anyone.


'The Thief of Bagdad' is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, 'The Thief of Bagdad' captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!


Usually I have a lot of luck with these small scale movies. I looked at the cast. Leary, Lovitz, Delpy, Wuhrer, Estevez. How bad could it be? Unfortunately the answer was...pretty bad. I have a hard time remembering a movie that had such poor execution of a plot that had potential.


This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book 'Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson.' Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


A lot of the comments seem to treat this film as a baseball movie, but I feel this is only secondary. It's really about living in Japan, and it really succeeds.

I spent a few years living in Japan, and I suppose the reason that this movie didn't do too well is that you sort of have to have experienced Japan to get it. I was watching this with a well-travelled friend who's never been to Japan, and he noted that many of the events in the movie were so ludicrous that they destroyed the suspension of disbelief. My reply was that those events were the absolute unvarnished truth about life in Japan!

I think that this movie is definitely worth watching, especially if you've lived in Japan or are interested in it.


What horrible writing and acting. No personality. What, you can't make a good movie with a single character? Hmm, it was done in Castaway with self dialog.

So this kid goes on a trip to see his father. The kid, Jason, takes a plane and the pilot has a heart attack and dies mid-flight. So the kid crashes in a lake and survives. Then he runs around, surviving in the wilderness until he gets rescued.

During that time he fights a bear twice. The first time he fights it off in the lake. The second time he makes a spear out of a branch and spears the bear. Two shots of fake blood spurting out of the bear's chest reminded me of Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail'.

Also the kid decides to kick a porcupine with predictable results.

Gag.


Well, what can be said about a 'horror comedy' that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.

The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.

Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the 'company' story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.


My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious.

This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers.

Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.

It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.

A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie


I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.

I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it.


Wow, there's a lot of venom directed at this movie, and a lot of it is deserved, but it's not the WORST movie of all time. (That's probably 'Zoolander'.)

Anyway, if you're high on something, really drunk, or just in the mood for a 'B-minus- minus' movie that you can make fun of, this may be your cup of tea.

Yes, as others said, the first part of the movie makes you think you're watching an updating of the Bram Stoker novel. Two of the main characters are named Van Helsing and Mina, the ship is the Demeter, and they're in the Carpathian galaxy. You later find that Van Helsing is a descendant of the original, and he just happens to be on a ship in the 30th century with Dracula. Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Oh yeah, and to add to the originality, this 'spooky ghost ship' movie has another character named Ash. Sound familiar?

There's paper-thin character development and anachronisms like the aforementioned manual wheelchair, and Coolio and Tom Lister talking 20th century black slang. But what really makes the movie ridiculous is the ending. If THAT's what happens to the characters, then the previous two hours have been a waste.

Like I said, it you want a dumb movie to play 'Mystery Science Theater' with, and your mind is in approximately the same mode required for viewing the 'Great Vegetable Rebellion' episode of LOST IN SPACE, then you may find this diverting. Otherwise, put a stake in it, it's done.


I can't quite say that 'Jerry Springer:Ringmaster' is the worst film I have ever seen. The film would be better off if it were, because at least the worst film I've ever seen, (Prom Night II) interested me enough for me to hate it. My only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when I looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. It had seemed much more like years. It is an endless repetition of poor people, (or what Jerry Springer seems to believe poor people are), screwing each other, hitting each other, insulting each other, and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. The plot, which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the Jerry Springer mill, advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. This makes it impossible to care what happens to them. It never mattered to me whether they got on the show, or what they said, or who slept with whom. Maybe I'm not supposed to care about them. Maybe I'm supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type-- to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. Too bad it isn't. The humor is not outrageous. It's innocuous. It's predictable. Humor has to have something behind it, some kind of painful irony or life experience, in order to function. Scatology is not wit. An example. A mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. To take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter's boyfriend. Since I was over the shock of Jerry Springer's show a long time ago, I had the same reaction I had to Andrew Dice Clay's obscene nursery rhymes; not laughter, just yawning. Lastly, I found Springer's pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. If he really were an advocate of the poor, he would bring on a single mom from Bed-Sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in New York City on $12,000 a year. Or, failing that, he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. Jerry Springer gets millions for his shows, his movie, his book and videos. His guests just get round trip air fare, hotel accommodations, and a chance to humiliate themselves. If he liked poor people so much, he'd give them at least some of the money they earn for him. It appears that Springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. Jeez, with all his fine work, you'd think he'd have earned our respect already. Anyway, the film is weak and boring. It doesn't even succeed at being offensive. If you want to have a better evening, videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that.


Sometime I fail to understand what do the directors think when they make a movie... I had had a trauma after watching Welcome (2007) and thought that they wont do it again. But after loads of amazing promos, Tashan finally ended as heart attack.

Such amazing 3 songs in promo - Dil Haara, Chhaliya and Tashan Mein..... and what u get in the movie? Zero story, predictable plot, plenty of Akshay Kumar stunts and nothing interesting apart from watching Kareena after her major weight loss...!!!

Music-wise another major disaster... in the music album, they have spent time on giving pathetic small dialogs of these 4 jokers and they haven't thought of giving the background song of the scenes when Akshay Kumar is doing stunts...! that song is such nice, quite comparable to Tashan Mein and that is not taken in the music album!!! :-( If you plan to watch this movie, i would say, watch it to listen to that background song which goes something like ...'Bachchan Bachchan Pandey...'

Overall very disappointed even with the way Bhaiyyaji has made attempt to speak bad English!

Go away man, i need to puke!


I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.

Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.

Then again piano sounds.

To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.

Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.

Also very interesting: The 'actors'. Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.

I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.


First of all i'd like to say that this movie is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind. It is the best out of all the excellent Muppet movies, and every other movie out there! so BOO-YA for jim Henson!

This Movie is the first of all the Muppet movies and the best. (boo ya) It's about a Frog (kermit) who tries to make to hollywood. along with the awesome friends he meets on the way comes a couple of the greatest songs ever made that are bound to become classics, including 'the rainbow connection'

in conclusion i would like to say that watching this movie was the greatest thing EVER!. If you havn't already seen it, then get off your computer and get you tushy to your nearest video store!!! (if they don't have the muppet movie, i'd sue them BIG TIME )


It is nice to see a show that has a little more content than just blood and guts for a change! As an added bonus, it is nice to see some local home boys from Massachusetts making good in L.A. I hope this show will be a keeper.


Bergman's regular Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann starred as a village couple, Jan and Eva Rosenberg. The story began with an ordinary couple who fights and make up. Jan was a sensitive person, but an escapist who isolated himself from the world. Eva is a practical woman who is getting fed up with her husband's lack of ambition. Because Jan procrastinating in fixing their radio, the are oblivious of the impending war. Of course the war arrived, and the movie was a fascinating study of their transformation of each other and to each other through the invasion as they were mistreated by the enemy and by their own government.

There were no musical score to the movie, but the soundtrack was the war noise. In one scene the pulsating background gun shot, the explosion, and sound of the fly by planes was incredible. Now and then, Bergman zoomed into the facial expression as different event took places. When something violent happened, he zoomed out to let the audience sensed the violence rather than seeing up close. Very well done movie.


ONE NIGHT AT McCOOL'S / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

	According to Harald Zwart, the director of 'One Night at McCool's,' this film is 'a dark comedy about the power of women over men, and how a group of people can all perceive different realities. It's the same story told from three different points of view, and each time we tell the story, we try to reveal a little bit more about what actually happened, which nobody really knows.'

	'One Night at McCool's' marks the feature film directorial debut of Zwart, an award winning commercial and music video director who began making short films when he was eight years old. I always get nervous when a director of commercials and music videos turns to filmmaking. We have seen so many examples of how these guys think they are making another advertisement or music video for TV with their productions. Zwart resists that tendency. He captures a specific humorous truth in 'One Night at McCool's,' from an inventive, complex screenplay by the late Stan Seidel, even if it is often somewhat perplexing.

	'One Night At McCool's' features three men who share their separate experiences about a particularly beautiful young woman. In some ways, this movie is the comedy version of 'American Beauty,' but in others, it is a world apart.

	'It all started one night at McCool's' explains each of the three men to their various listeners. There is Randy (Matt Dillon), a tender at the local bar, and his cousin, a lawyer named Carl (Paul Reiser), who stays until the place closes. Detective Dehling (John Goodman), arrives when the saloon becomes the crime scene of the dead boyfriend of a female fatal appropriately named Jewel (Liv Tyler). Randy is the first to see her, as an individual treats her unkindly. He stands up for her, and before you can say SEXY, they are having vigorous sex and she moves in with him. At first, Randy is reluctant: 'The sex and the violence, all in one night  it's a little much.' But who could turn a jewel like Jewel away.

	Jewel changes the lives of each of the three men. For Detective Dehling, she pulls him out of a hole of grief since his wife died. For Carl, she makes him forget his loving family and nice little suburban household. For Randy, she lights a few fires, both positive and negative, the later persuading him to contact a bingo playing hit man named Burmeister (Michael Douglas) to put an end to her deceptive ways.

 It is interesting how the movie perceives the three different chronicles-even the costuming of Jewel is relative to the man telling the story. Dehling sees Jewel as a beautiful, mesmerizing gift from God. Carl sees Jewel as two sexy legs and lots of cleavage. Randy is unsure what to make of her, an awakening to his otherwise boring, road to nowhere life. The most intriguing element of this movie is Jewel herself, however, deliciously played by the always delightful Liv Tyler ('Armageddon'). She is not really interested in the men, but what they can offer her. Her motives are all too simple, not truthfully diabolical or evil; she is simply a young lady who has learned at an early age that she can get what she wants out of life through her beauty.

	The film has a lot of fun with its material. From the enthusiastically entertaining cast, to its violently hilarious showdown, 'One Night at McCool's' takes advantage of most of its humorous ideas. What makes the movie even funnier is how the three men's points of view differ. The actors have a lot of fun with their characters, too. Goodman is curiously whimsical; Reiser fits his kinky, squirmy part quite well; Douglas is sly and mysterious in one of the movie's funniest performances; Dillon gives his character arrogant personality, even though Randy is a lackluster nobody; Liv Tyler is dazzling. She injects Jewel with the perfect amount of boastful charisma and tantalizing wit. She reminds us of Mena Suvari's intimate performance in 'American Beauty.'

	'One Night at McCool's' is the first film to come from Michael Douglas' new production company, Furthur Films. It is a creative, genuine, and sexy production. Along the way we often become caught up in the twisty structure, but that is a natural response to a movie that intentionally interweaves several angles to a single story. The movie ends on a note that is both black and comedic. This is another one of those comedies in which serious events take place in a humorous way; i.e., the black comedy. Many films of this genre come across as either too black or too lackadaisical. 'One Night at McCool's' is one of the few that actually work.


The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.


A talented high school graduating senior with a bad attitude is forced to play in the state all-star high school football game. When he meets and falls for an attractive local girl she helps him realize he has a shot at a 'full ride' scholarship if he plays well.

All too often, these dramas fall into formulaic traps and tell the same old story of a troubled and confused teen. FULL RIDE's Matt Sabo certainly fits this profile, but below the surface is a much more unique individual than we usually see in this genre. Matt is the center of the action and he is a realistic teenager, both over-confident and vulnerable, optimistic and cynical by turns. Influenced by Amy, Matt grows into a man of character and heart. He, in turn, forms friendships with his teammates, which influences his growth as an athlete and as a team player.

FULL RIDE has all the elements we love to see in a movie--great acting, admirable characters, exciting sports scenes, poignant drama, and a love story. Still, while one may have seen these elements in other films, FULL RIDE is assisted by performances that are sincere and occasionally, even moving. Perhaps what's most impressive about FULL RIDE is its sense of reality. Although the author of the previous comment would seem to disagree, (clearly a disgruntled student who, for quite obvious reasons, received a poor grade in his film class) director Mark Hoeger grounds the film in a believable situation and location and does a great job of getting down to the grit of what life is like in a small town. These characters are real people rooted in realistic situations, which often create the most compelling entertainment. On one level it is a love story, on another it is a character study, and yet another it is a simple football film. All of these ideas come together to form a cohesive vehicle.


This film is one of the best shorts I've ever seen - and as I make it a point to be at all the major film festivals, I've seen a lot, especially of what the industry considers 'the best.' I'm not a fan of Monaghan. His acting generally tends to be overdone and uninteresting to me, his only decent performance being in Lost, so I generally try to avoid his films. I did, however, happen to see this at a film festival a few years back and was completely awed. This director really knows what she's doing. Of course, you are going to get the trolls (or just ignorant people) who don't understand what constitutes a good film and rip on low budget work because they have no idea what went into it. But luckily, from what I've seen, they are in the minority when it comes to this gem.

Let's not deny that the film was working on no budget, and that a couple of the supporting actors could still use work, because that's certainly true. The production value is very low, but what can you expect for a first real film from someone still in high school? Pretend for a moment that the budget doesn't matter. If you take away a bit of the acting, the sound quality (which actually wasn't the fault of the filmmaker; I saw this at a festival and the sound was fine...I guarantee whoever made the DVD itself screwed up), and the fact it was shot on mini-DV, then what are you left with? The story, the visual composition and the soul of the film, which are indisputably flawless.

Nanavati can tell a story. That much is clear. She can write substance-heavy, engaging scripts better than most people in Hollywood, create a shot list that perfectly compliments that story, and bring it to life in a fascinating, creative way that, were this higher budget, might have won awards. Give it more experienced actors, better sound post-production, and 35mm instead of mini-DV and even the trolls couldn't complain. This girl is incredible, and keeping in mind that Insomniac was made a good few years ago, she's done some amazing work since. The trailer for Dreams of an Angel shows that, and I can't wait to see the higher budget stuff she's done. 9/10 stars, this is one hell of a movie from one hell of a filmmaker.


Busy is so amazing! I just loved every word she has ever done- freaks and geeks, Dawson's creek, white chicks, the smokers. after the first time i saw home room i went and got it the next day. i am a big fan of her and she has a lot of fans here in Israel. if someone hasn't saw is excellent movie than don't waist more time and go see it now. i recommend to all of you to see all of her movies. i saw busy in the late night show with Conan and she was so beautiful and cute i just love her! everybody who saw the movie- in home room she looks very scary but in real life she is so beautiful! you have to see all her half nude pictures for stuff magazine (maxim) she looks so good there! ~DANIELLE~


The video opens with a scene from a horror movie, in which a man proposes to his girlfriend. He begins to tell her that he is 'different.' As the full moon rises, he morphs into a werewolf. He then pursues her through the woods, and right before he attacks, we're taken to the inside of the movie theater. Inside the theater are Michael and his girlfriend. She's too scared to watch any longer, so they leave. As they exit the theater, he begins to tease her. ('It's close to midnight, something evil's lurking in the dark...') Michael then sings and dances his way down the street with his girlfriend. This scene shows Michael's skill with the camera. He never once acts 'aware' of its presence, as many other artists do. As they make there way past the graveyard, the graves begin to open... Once they arrive at an alley, they are confronted with a horde of the undead. We then see the horror stricken face of Michael's girl. Who wouldn't have a horror stricken look if their date morphed into a zombie? Yep, he becomes one of the undead. (A very bright and shiny one, though.) He and his fellow zombies then begin what may be the most well known dance choreography of any music video. To tell you any more would give the ending away.

This is my favorite music video of all time! You don't want to miss it! I give it a 10/10. (Yes, I know you can see the curtains in the back of the sound stage, and the werewolf looks kind of cheesy by today's standards.)


I have been meaning to see this flick for the past few months. I was actually surprised at how good it was.

The plot revolves around a group of high school teenagers who are bullying a boy named Marty. They constantly bully him until one of them makes a horrific mistake which leaves Marty horribly burned.

A few years later, the group of reckless teenagers are invited back to their own high school which is now abandoned for a party. Though, not one of the reckless teenagers has organized this party.

Later through the film, the teenagers start dying in the most gruesome of ways possible. I can certainly tell you that they are gory as well.

At the end of the film, you find out it was all a dream and none of it happened. But, Marty is in the hospital with severe burns. Although the murders didn't happen, the burns and the pranks apparently did happen.

The acting is terrible but that is fine.

I love the story. I really sympathize with Marty. It's like Tamara (2005). The bullies get what's coming to them in the end and you end up feeling satisfied for the victim getting their sweet revenge.

I would strongly recommend anyone pick this up if you are looking for 80s slashers.

I give this movie 8 stars out of 10. Good cheesy slasher!


A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.

Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.


Great acting, great production values, good direction.

But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.

The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.

This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.

The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.


A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.

But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.

One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.


One of the best movies ever, the idea of a double interpretation involves we all.

Would be Prot a schizophrenic or an E.T? (No doubt in my opinion, but let's keep the question open...). Kevin Spacey, the big screen monster, plays Prot as it should be done. Let's not forget Jeff Bridges and his great psychiatric.

Lastly, a masterpiece that speakes for itself. Can keep our eyes wide open from the beginning to the credits and our minds thinking even when the movie is over. If you still didn't watch it, go right now! And again, again...


'Five Characters In Search of An Exit' clearly has to be one of the more clever and better 'Twilight Zone' episodes ever made because of it's abstract ideas and thoughtful plan where the characters have to search to discover identity and it ends as a surprise. You have a military major, a female dancer, bag pipe player, a clown, and hobo who all awake together in the bottom of a wall and none know how they got there and they don't know who they are. So the episode starts out with very interesting drama and suspense from the very beginning making it so soul searching for the viewers interest to want to know the characters true identity and backgrounds. Plus the episode even adds more intrigue for the fact it places different types of characters with different views and lifestyles all with one goal in common to escape and find identity, and peace that's very compelling for the viewer. Only in the end I don't want to spoil for those who haven't seen a surprise fall happens! Proving that many times you might want to stay where you are away in your little sheltered world and be away from the masses of other people's world as you will see the characters are loved in a different way by people in a much different form. Really great and cleverly done a real shock twist surprise that makes the viewer see the unexpected and cruel fate that happens sometimes when you search and seek.