Julia Ross (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position as a secretary with the rich Hughes family to get over her boyfriend leaving her. Almost immediately she is drugged and shipped off to the family's estate in Cornwall. When she awakens they keep telling her she's Marion Hughes, has been mentally ill and keep her locked up...but why? You'll probably guess why but won't mind because this one is fun.

Along with 'The Narrow Margin' and 'Face Behind the Mask' this is one of the best B pictures ever made. (B pictures were low budget pictures made quickly with low budgets and no major stars). It's just as long as it needs to be (only 65 minutes), is well-directed, fast paced and exciting. It only stumbles at the end which I found a bit too implausible to buy.

Foch (a good actress) is just OK in the lead but Dame May Witty is great and George Macready is excellent (and frightening) as the villains. Well worth catching. A perfect example of how you can make a great movie on a small budget.


Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.

There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals 'cook' the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.

This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources.

*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady


Jonathan Demme's directorial debut for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures rates highly as one of the finest chicks-in-chains 70's grindhouse classics to ever grace celluloid. Beauteous Russ Meyer starlet Eric ('Vixen,' 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls') Gavin gives a robust, winning performance as a brassy, resilient new fish who does her best to persevere in a grimy, hellish penitentiary. The always fabulous Barbara Steele offers a deliciously wicked portrayal as the mean, crippled, sexually frustrated warden (her erotic dream about doing a slow, steamy striptease in front of the lady inmates is a real dilly). Longtime favorite 70's B-movie actress Roberta ('The Arousers,' 'Unholy Rollers') Collins delivers a hilariously raunchy and endearing turn as a cheerfully forward, foul-mouthed kleptomaniac felon who tells a gut-busting dirty joke about Pinnochio. Lynda Gold (a.k.a. Crystin Sinclaire of Tobe Hooper's 'Eaten Alive' and Curtis Harrington's 'Ruby') makes her lively film debut as uninhibited wildcat Crazy Alice. And the ever-cuddly Cheryl 'Rainbeaux' Smith does a lovely, touching reprise of her fragile frightened innocent role from 'Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural.'

Although this picture does deliver the expected ample amount of coarse language, nudity, rape and violence, it's still by no means a typically crass and sexist piece of lurid mindless filth; the movie very effectively explores the many ways in which men cruelly exploit women and strongly asserts the pro-feminist notion that women can overcome any obstacles if they band together into a group so they can bravely face their misogynistic oppressors as one mighty fighting force. Demme's zesty, confidant direction comes through with a glorious abundance of astutely observed incidental details and delightful moments of engagingly quirky human behavior. Furthermore, both Tak Fujimoto's vibrant cinematography and John Cale's marvelously dolorous oddball blues score are 100% on the money excellent. Patrick Wright (Sheriff Mack in the uproariously awful cheap-rubber-monster-suit creature feature howler 'Track of the Moonbeast') has a sidesplitting bit as a jerky cop who has his car stolen by a trio of prison escapees when he stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Lively, rousing and immensely enjoyable, 'Caged Heat' qualifies as absolutely essential viewing for 70's drive-in movie fans.


I love bad movies. Not only, because they often are as entertaining as 'really' 'good' films (like Pirates of the Caribbean series and other Hollywood pathos), but they often are far better than those films. And that's the reason why I love Italian rip off cinema of 1970s and 1980s. And that's the reason why I especially love this movie, The Barbarians & the Company.

Director Ruggero Deodato has made some actually very good movies, like House on the Edge of the Park, and also his Atlantis Interceptors and Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man are enjoyable action movies. But this is really bad. The Barbarians is so idiotic movie. Peter and David Paul as the Barbarian Brothers Kutchek and Gore are very funny, because of their lack of charisma and acting skills. But if they can't act, they yell and scream every time they do something important. In one scene people try to hang the Barbarian Brothers, and they escape very extraordinary way.

Bad acting, bad special effects, very stupid story, bad direction, actually everything is bad in this movie. I can't describe how much I laughed when I watched this first time. The Barbarians & the Company is camp classic everybody should see once. If you thought Plan 9 From Outer Space is fun camp, this will be a real killer.


Saw this last night at the 7th Annual NYC Home Film Festival -- a rather tumultuous venue that quieted down for this sweet and touching two-woman film.

The relationship between the two -- one, older and blind, the other, a twenty- something who helps her with her mail -- is established deftly, and its depth is readily apparent.

There are no car chases, explosions, or mind-boggling special effects -- just the sometimes difficult but rewarding task of humans reaching out toward each other to help and be helped.

See if it you can!


I had nothing to do before going out one night so I didn't want to watch anything too heavy, I picked the perfect film. This must have been a gift to Barrymore from someone she slept with, the director Raja Gosnell has made nothing but silly crap and the writing on this one is just atrocious. In what high school can you register without a parent present and no proof of age or former schooling? They let kids all come to the prom with no shirts, in skin tight leotards, ass shorts and one girl was dressed as Eve wearing only fig leaves? She announces that she's 25 and her brother is 23 but there is no reprisal from the school, parents or lawsuits of any kind against the newspaper for fraud or spying? The newspaper boss wants to catch the teacher in an underage sex scandal but doesn't realize the teacher is coming on to a 25 year old so any case would be entrapment? They allow a camera in and record peoples private conversations with under age kids? I wonder if I hired my younger sister to go back to HS with a camera on her and filmed under age girls for my personnel use I would not get in some kind of trouble??? NAHHHH No problem. Didn't she have to take gym or go to the bathroom at some point? The secondary characters in this were like cardboard cutouts of what high school students are thought to be and everybody was a stereotype. Jessica Alba is just embarrassingly bad in this mugging for the camera at every chance. In what world do the parents not get suspicious when their uber-geeky daughter is miraculously asked out by the school stud to the prom? And they don't ask the guy inside to meet him like every other parent in history. If some guy in my school or any other school for that matter had conned my sister and thrown eggs at her in her prom dress he would have been in a body cast for the rest of his life. This movie is so contrived and predictable it's nauseating, and why at the end is everybody (the Alpo girls included) cheering for this chick when two days before they hated her????

DUMB, DUMB AND DUMB.


There's nothing amazing about 'The Amazing Mr Williams'. Part of this movie's problem is its lead actor Melvyn Douglas. He was a lousy actor and lazy with it. For most of his career, he allowed his good looks, a glib manner and (usually, but not in this movie) some fine scriptwriting to make up for his lack of acting ability. I disliked Douglas as an actor before I knew anything about him as a person; I've learnt enough about him to know that I also despise his politics. I'll give Melvyn Douglas credit for one thing: his chromosomes did produce the incredibly talented and sexy actress Illeana Douglas.

Melvyn Douglas made this movie right after the brilliant 'Ninotchka' ... talk about a comedown! 'The Amazing Mr Williams' is allegedly a comedy, but I never laughed. Douglas plays a plainclothes detective on the homicide squad, named Kenny Williams. I never heard of a police detective named Kenny, but if they called him Kenneth Williams ... well, what a carry-on. The whole city is in a panic because a serial killer is going about, killing women. No motive is given for this; he just likes to kill women. The mayor (Jonathan Hale, better than usual) calls Williams on the carpet to account for his failure to catch the killer.

SPOILERS APPROACHING. The cheap, vulgar, untalented and unattractive Joan Blondell plays the mayor's secretary. (She doesn't sound literate enough to file a letter, much less type one.) Blondell and Douglas squabble like a cat and a dog, so it's blatantly obvious they're going to end up together.

At this movie's lowest point, Melvyn Douglas decides to draw out the killer by dressing up as a woman. You do NOT want to see Melvyn Douglas in drag! He's well over six foot, and he doesn't even shave off that annoying moustache. The similarly-'tashed William Powell was an actor very similar in type to Melvyn Douglas (but much more talented). When Powell disguised himself as a woman in 'Love Crazy', he had the integrity to shave off his moustache: a genuine sacrifice, as Powell needed it to grow in again for his next role. But Melvyn Douglas brings nothing whatever to his role in this movie, not even a razor. He plays his drag scenes with the same annoying smirk he used throughout the bulk of his career.

On the plus side, 'The Amazing Mr Williams' has several of those splendid supporting players who made Hollywood's movies of the '30s so delightful. Edward Brophy is brilliant here, touching and funny as a criminal who gets an unlikely furlough from his life sentence. The dyspeptic Donald MacBride is fine as a cop who gets mistaken for the killer, and is nearly lynched by a mob. Ruth Donnelly is splendid: as usual for her, but here she gets a chance to show her talents away from her usual orbit on the Warner Brothers backlot. Jimmy Conlin, Luis Alberni and the grinning Dave Willock are all fine in small roles. Barbara Pepper (whom I usually dislike) is good here too. The grossly unpleasant Maude Eburne gets some screen time; I always loathe her, and she gives the same performance in every film ... but some audiences enjoy Eburne's one-note performance very much, for reasons I can't fathom.

If you're familiar with Hollywood character actors of the 1930s, and the roles they tended to play, one glance at IMDb's cast list will tell you who the murderer is. That's the problem with 'The Amazing Mr Wiliams': everything is too obvious. I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.


This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.

It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.

So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.


This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.

My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.

The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a 'high risk', a higher ranking bank official takes over saying 'You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!' 'The Best Years of Our Lives' won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended!


Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.


Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like 'ftagn yog sototh' could possibly lead to any good?

The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's 'hell is other people' with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.

Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women.


I feel very fortunate to have the chance to not only watch this film, but also learn more about this fascinating person and time. Lumumba is an outstanding portrayal, giving a full sense of the story without falling into the usual Hollywood trappings - yes, he is shown with his wife and children, but the essence of the story is his politics and those of the still-emerging independent Congo. The film is brilliantly made, moving along at a pace that is consistently engaging. I look forward to seeing other Raoul Peck films, as well as more from Eric Ebouaney!


A young and seemingly promising college graduate (played by Blair Underwood) is sent to jail for the murder of an innocent young girl and is put on death row. Sean Connery plays the 'happy go lucky' attorney whom the young man's grandmother tracks down out of retirement and pleads with to take on the case in the hopes of freeing her grandson. Laurence Fishburne plays a police officer who was well involved in the case and is hell bent on debunking an theory that Connery might dig up to try and free the boy whom he and the entire police department swear is guilty of the crime. Ed Harris, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee, and the Late Lynne Thigpen co-star in this very intense dramatic thriller.


The main character Lance Barton gets killed and to heaven before his time. When heaven learns about the mistake he is given the body of just deceased rich old and white Mr. Wellington.

A young black guy in a old white mans body still behaving like the young black man is maybe funny if you see it done by an old white actor. In this movie I ended up reminding myself several times: 'Chris Rock is supposed to be an old white guy'.

The whole concept does not play as intended: The 'illusion' is not transported well and the love story is not believable at all. The fact that all you see is Chris Rock playing a young black guy, because the old white person everyone is supposed to see is only shown in small scenes, is to much of a challenge for the viewers 'suspension of disbelief'.


This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between 'Kung-Fu' and 'H R Pufnstuff' on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, 'cliffhanger scenes', and not too much romance or other 'icky' stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.)

I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.

Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.

Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! 'Dialogue' is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that 'dialog' is the proper spelling. While 'dialog' is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form.


The Swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson's latest film You, the Living is not easy to review. One of the reasons is that in his own words he has broken with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of story-telling, in all essence the template of most Western film productions. Another reason might be that although Roy Andersson is somewhat heavy on symbolisms, his, unlike those of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky, are of a more elusive nature. It took him 3 years to complete this 86 minute long film and it wasn't because he was forced to have long breaks between shootings due to financial troubles or problems with the actors. The film consists of 57 vignettes shot mostly by a still camera, and it was the careful design of each of these scenes which required much time. The imagery of this film which is closely related to the director's previous film Songs from the Second Floor is of utmost importance to the story, thus this story is told to a great degree by the surroundings and the environment in which the characters of Andersson's universe dwell and interact. Before each scene was finally shot, there would have been no less than 10 different test shootings with different actors, colors, dialog etc. The result is a dreamlike version of the surrounding world which most of us would recognize and if the setting is like a dream, why not dream a little? Just like in Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, when somebody says 'Last night I had a dream', you get to watch it. But then again, what is perceived as reality here is not very much different from the dreams.

Despite the fact that the film lacks a plot in the traditional sense of the word and there are no main characters as such, the different characters who appear and reappear in different scenes still meet each other and their stories are inevitably intertwined. What most of these characters have in common is their apparent loneliness despite being surrounded by other people. The trailer trash chain smoking and binge drinking woman who dreams of having a motorbike so that she can get away from 'all this crap', her corpulent and mostly silent boyfriend and his frail and seemingly gentle but rather absent-minded mother, members of a brass band whose skill improving efforts at home aren't getting a favorable reception neither from their families nor their neighbors, the depressed Middle Eastern hairdresser and his arrogant customer on his way to 'a very important business meeting', an elderly man having a nightmare about bombers in the skies, a young girl dreaming about marrying the young rock star that she is so madly in love with. It's all about dreams and nightmares versus reality but it works as much as a statement in support of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's claims that 'all human communication is miscommunication'. People speak to each other but it is as if they speak past each other. They try to reach out to the others but shut the others out when those try to reach them.

You, the Living is a poetic film set physically in Stockholm but yet universally applicable. The society it portrays is Sweden, its artistic language and the people displayed are generally unmistakably Nordic. Yet, the subject it deals with, namely, the misery of the humankind in a selfish world, reaches far beyond this hemisphere. Despite the seriousness of its theme, the film itself seems a lot more cheerful and laden with humor than one might have expected. But in the words of the director himself 'living is so complicated to each one of us that the only thing that saves us is our sense of humor'. Hence, this film is a tragic comedy or a comic tragedy, depending on your sensitivities, and not a depressing black reality tour of the human nature. It is unusual in its language and structure, but if you can think outside the box and enjoy it, you will certainly find this film both entertaining and meaningful at the same time. It was shown at this year's Cannes festival as part of the Un Certain Regard program which offers 'original and different works' outside the competition. After the film was shown in the Salle Debussy, the 1,000 strong audience gave it a standing ovation for several minutes. Do I need to say more?


Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke star in this controversial story of a wall street exec and an art gallery employee who hook up and begin a very experimental sexual relationship.While the acting by Rourke and Basinger is ok, the flim doesn't allow their characters to truly form. Allegedly there was a lot of film left on the cutting room floor that delved deeper into the characters and the effects of the relationship on them - Basinger's character considering suicide - that would have made the characters more involved for the viewer. As is it is a glossy, well produced, with MTV style editing piece of soft core voyeurism. 4 of 10


For such films like `Anchors Aweigh', few have been bestowed with as many Academy Award accolades in a warm up for happy hour. Either 1945 was a beleaguered year for good film or they were still suffering advance shock by Billy Wilder's `The Lost Weekend' that they wrote anything starting with A on the ballot for best picture to please the still musical picture faithful public. Since Gene Kelly was nominated for this performance instead of his role in `Singin' in the Rain', then there had to be something wrong with the behind the scenes rigging systems at MGM. Of course, the studio is on its best behaviour during this much lauded tour of the great studios and of Hollywood itself, handy for those stuck on the other side of the world.

Yet a sailor suit musical with the brilliant talents of Gene and Frank Sinatra is certainly an enjoyable farce, despite the need for more people to yawn at the previews for the musical so today's audiences wouldn't be slapped with an unnecessary runtime. There have been many longer pieces before and since, but in this case all of the charming Kathryn Grayson's scenes could have been eliminated. Until the viewing of `Kiss Me Kate' it may have been necessary non-opera enthusiasts to watch any of her films with remote control in hand. <br /><br />If there was a need to practice picking up women for 1949's `On the Town', then perhaps the shore leave lucky sailors did not have to promise an audition with Jose Iturbi and strike up the piano for a whole hearted `Susie' rendition. Few are lucky to get a screen test at the golden studios of MGM. Then few are even luckier to be attended to. There are no regrets to be had about the successful screen tests of Susan Abbot or Kathryn Grayson, but it makes the continual non-opera enthusiast hope for the eventual pink slip to be handed out to both.

But for all, the star talents are good shape and an above average score thrown in with a slight, but fun great navy story intertwined with young ambitious navy boys good for late bursts of wartime morale, makes `Anchors' at least doesn't question picking the wrong MGM film. The direction holds up as the cast carries the story in lovely colour cinematography. Whenever anyone bursts into music or song, the film makes for a joyous occasion.

The natural highlight of the film is Gene Kelly's cartoon adventures in a fantasyland, climaxing in a brilliant dance with Jerry the mouse. This is a well-deserved masterpiece number of Kelly's career, and it's nice to know he thought of it before Fred Astaire started taking to dancing on walls and ceilings.

It's not exactly sitting down to a triple flavour, rainbow sprinkled, chocolate wafer, cream and cherry and banana split sundae, but it is a square solid lump of sugar that somehow eventually melts in your mouth and despite the guilt, is still a pleasant feeling.

Rating: 7/10


This is definitely the worst bigfoot movie I've ever seen and quite possibly the overall worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The actors and actresses were horrible and it seemed like they were trying way too hard to play their roles as dorks, tough guys, jerks, know it alls, etc. And the bigfoot itself was terrible. It appeared to be some kind of computer generated image from the days of Atari & Intellivision. At one point near the end of the movie as an army of sasquatches were chasing after the remaining survivors, one gets shot and as it's running it looked like a poor man's version of donkey kong himself! And one gets hit by a bullet and the blood that comes out of it was just awful animation. Another thing that was annoying was the music. Way way way too much music (classical score or whatever you call it) throughout the entire film. It was never ending. Oh yeah, the movie is boring too. Absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I highly recommend taking your $3 or whatever they charge to rent this movie and spending it on a gallon of gas or a value menu somewhere. TRULY AWFUL!


The evil Professor Moriarty plots to gain control of both SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON which could win the war for the Nazis.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return to the screen as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved detective and sidekick, Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson, in this entertaining little mystery. Universal Studios wasted no money on either fancy production values or a sensible script, knowing that its two stars would be all the attraction an audience would need. Indeed Rathbone, as the cerebral ego, and Bruce, as the bumbling id, seem to actually become the characters they are creating, gleefully keeping their faces straight while engaged in the most utter nonsense.

Dennis Hoey makes his first appearance as the dogged Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard; teamed with Bruce, these two good-hearted but pedantic fellows actually get to save the intellectually superior Holmes' life twice. Lionel Atwill, a master of the sinister who deserves more recognition for his talent, does a fine job as Moriarty, making the wicked rascal a foe worthy of Holmes' steel, relishing the scenes in which he gets to inflict torture & pain.

William Post Jr. and Kaaren Verne play the Swiss scientist and his girlfriend who are at the heart of the mystery, but they're not given much to do. Sweet Mary Gordon makes a token appearance as Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson.

Rathbone spices up his already classic interpretation of Holmes by getting to appear in disguise three times during the story, thereby revealing to the viewer that the great sleuth was a bit of a ham actor at heart.

This film--which is based very loosely on elements in Sir Arthur's short stories 'The Dancing Men' and 'The Empty House'--followed SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) and preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON (1943).


I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone.

I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring.

The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her.

The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting.

Lord help us all.


This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10


Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is about the discovery of a planet on the other side of the sun which shares the same orbit as earth and therefore has been undiscovered until a space probe on the far side of the sun photographs it. Of course two astronauts (Roy Thinnes & Ian Hendry) are sent to explore it but due to a malfunction they crash & find themselves back on earth only 3 weeks into their six week journey. Of course they're berated (at least Thinnes is, Hendry is gravely injured) and grilled and asked why they turned back on their mission but it's claimed that they didn't. Until Thinnes seems to notice a few very odd things about being back 'home'. This is excellent if somewhat talky at times, and the sets and feel aren't a far cry from 'Thunderbirds' territory but will live actors for once. It's no big 'Star Wars' type production but more quiet science fiction that one has to think about a bit. Well worth seeing and it's criminal that the DVD is out of print. 8 out of 10.


This was one of the best movies you could find as a child. I lived with The Chipmunk Adventure from 4 years old to 8 years old. The story of this film was: Dave's going on a business trip to Europe and sticks the boys with Miss Miller. While playing an Around the World in 80 Days video game, two villains, Klaus and Claudia (brother and sister), round the Chipmunks and Chipettes into an adventure in which the kids must hot-air-balloon their way across the globe. What they're unaware of is that the 'game' is really a diamond-smuggling ring. And when found at the airport by the villains, a chase ensues! And which ends in Klaus and Claudia off to jail and Alvin, Simon, Theodore, Brittany, Jeanette, and Eleanor safe with Dave and Miss Miller. But I am warning you now, this is a musical and quite a damn good one at that. Most people hate musicals, but I am not one of those people, I frigging love musicals like Rocky Horror, Grease, Sound of Music, Cats Don't Dance, and just about anything (except for My Fair Lady). If you see this, share with your kids (if you got any)!


With a cast of mostly lesser-tiered stars (Alain Delon, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert), lousy special effects (sure, it was the 70's but 'Alien' and 'Star Wars' came from the same decade), and a storyline that is so laughable that one might want to cry, this is a 'flight' that should have been GROUNDED.

Even Academy Award winners Cicely Tyson and George Kennedy can't keep this 'bird' airborne.

The implausibility of the third film - airplane is submerged in The Bermuda Triangle - is much more believable than this turkey.

Avoid 'The Concorde' at all costs!


This is the kind of movie that's so extremely bad that you cant stop watching it because you keep telling yourself that 'it cannot continue to be this crappy all the way to the end. It just cant'. You know, 'worse than Jaws 4'-kind of bad.

I honestly think I've only seen ONE movie that was worse than this, and then we're talking religious crap about how you'd end up in hell for lying or watching football.

Gore? Indeed and lots of it. Well made gore? No way.

The acting is beyond bad and all the lines are lousy clichés. Same goes for the storyline which only really consist of sex, blood and violence, like so many other gore movies.

If you're hoping for a mix between Ichi the Killer and August Underground keep looking. You wont find it in Live Feed.


Preston Sturgis' THE POWER AND THE GLORY was unseen by the public for nearly twenty or thirty years until the late 1990s when it resurfaced and even showed up on television. In the meantime it had gained in notoriety because Pauline Kael's THE CITIZEN KANE BOOK had suggested that the Herman Mankiewicz - Orson Welles screenplay for KANE was based on Sturgis' screenplay here. As is mentioned in the beginning of this thread for the film on the IMDb web site, Kael overstated her case.

There are about six narrators who take turns dealing with the life of Charles Foster Kane: the newsreel (representing Ralston - the Henry Luce clone), Thatcher's memoirs, Bernstein, Jed Leland, Susan Alexander Kane, and Raymond the butler. Each has his or her different slant on Kane, reflecting their faith or disappointment or hatred of the man. And of course each also reveals his or her own failings when they are telling their version of Kane's story. This method also leads to frequent overlapping re-tellings of the same incident.

This is not the situation in THE POWER AND THE GLORY. Yes, like KANE it is about a legendary business leader - here it is Tom Garner (Spencer Tracy), a man who rose from the bottom to being head of the most successful railroad system in the country. But there are only two narrators - they are Garner's right hand man Henry (Ralph Morgan) and his wife (Sarah Padden). This restricts the nearly three dimensional view we get at times of Kane in Garner. Henry, when he narrates, is talking about his boss and friend, whom he respected and loved. His wife is like the voice of the skeptical public - she sees only the flaws in Henry.

Typical example: Although he worked his way up, Tom becomes more and more anti-labor in his later years. Unions are troublemakers, and he does not care to be slowed down by their shenanigans. Henry describes Tom's confrontation with the Union in a major walk-out, and how it preoccupied him to the detriment of his home life. But Henry's wife reminds him how Tom used scabs and violence to end the strike (apparently blowing up the Union's headquarters - killing many people). So we have two views of the man but one is pure white and one is pure black.

I'm not really knocking THE POWER AND THE GLORY for not duplicating KANE's success (few films do - including all of Orson Welles' other films), but I am aware that the story is presented well enough to hold one's interest to the end. And thanks to the performances of Tracy and Colleen Moore as his wife Sally, the tragedy of the worldly success of the pair is fully brought home.

When they marry, Tom wants to do well (in part) to give his wife and their family the benefits he never had. But in America great business success comes at a cost. Tom gets deeply involved with running the railroad empire (he expands it and improves it constantly). But it takes him away from home too much, and he loses touch with Sally. And he also notices Eve (Helen Vinson), the younger woman who becomes his mistress. When Sally learns of his unfaithful behavior it destroys her.

Similarly Tom too gets a full shock (which makes him a martyr in the eyes of Henry). Eve marries Tom, and presents him with a son - but it turns out to be Eve's son by Tom's son Tom Jr. (Philip Trent). The discovery of this incestuous cuckolding causes Tom to shoot himself.

The film is not a total success - the action jumps at times unconvincingly. Yet it does make the business seem real (note the scene when Tom tells his Board of Directors about his plans to purchase a small rival train line, and he discusses the use of debentures for financing the plans). Sturgis came from a wealthy background, so he could bring in this type of detail. So on the whole it is a first rate film. No CITIZEN KANE perhaps, but of interest to movie lovers as an attempt at business realism with social commentary in Depression America.


If you're a fan of film noir and think they don't make 'em like they used to, here is your answer -they just don't make 'em in Hollywood anymore. We must turn to the French to remember how satisfying, subtle and terrific a well-made film from that genre can be. Read My Lips is a wonderfully nasty little gift to the faithful from director Jacques Audiard, featuring sharp storytelling and fine performances from Emmanuelle Devos and Vincent Cassel.

The basic plot could have been written in the 40's: dumb but appealing ex-con and a smart but dowdy femme fatale (who turns out to be ruthlessly ambitious) discover each other while living lives of bleak desperation and longing, manipulate each other to meet their own ends, develop complex love/hate relationship, cook up criminal scheme involving heist, double crosses, close calls and lots of money. All action takes place in depressing, seedy and/or poorly lit locations.

Audiard has fashioned some modern twists, of course. The femme fatale is an underappreciated office worker who happens to be nearly deaf and uses her lip reading ability to take revenge on those who marginalize her. And where you might expect steamy love scenes you discover that both characters are sexually awkward and immature. Add in a bit of modern technology and music and it seems like a contemporary film, but make no mistake - this is old school film noir. It's as good as any film from the genre and easily one of the best films I've seen all year.


The story of the untouchable who acted like a great soldier, saving the lives of hundreds if not thousands, is told in the 1939 film 'Gunga Din.' Based loosely on the Rudyard Kipling poem, the film is brilliantly directed by George Stevens and stars Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor Mclagen. The title role is played by Sam Jaffe, well known in my era as Ben Casey's boss, Dr. Zorba, a name that became synonymous with big, out of control hair. Say 'Dr. Zorba hair' to anyone of my generation, and they know what you're talking about.

Set in India at the time of the British occupation, three soldiers - two romantic, dashing figures in Grant and Fairbanks, and McLagen as a big lug - are cut-ups - in reality, three overgrown boys. Gunga Din is the water carrier, treated somewhat meanly - verbally, anyway - by McChesney (McLaglen), but Cutter (Grant) is fond of him. When he catches Din (pronounced Deen) practicing being his soldier walk and salute as he apes the unit during their maneuvers, Cutter gives him a few pointers.

The merry band of musketeers is going to break up when Ballantine (Fairbanks) announces he's about to be married to a lovely young woman (Joan Fontaine) and leaving the service. However, when Gunga Din and Cutter run across Thugees, a murderous cult led by a guru (Eduardo Cianelli), Gunga Din escapes to warn the unit, and Ballantine insists on re-enlisting to help save Cutter. It's a buddy movie after all.

'Gunga Din' starts out lightheartedly, with slapstick and wonderful, broad comedy, particularly by Cary Grant, who is quite funny. Both he and Fairbanks are so handsome, it's hard to decide which one to look at first. Much of the film is made up of huge action sequences which are very exciting. In the last part, the story becomes very dramatic and culminates in a tense, thrilling battle.

Grant has the showiest role, Fairbanks is the lovesick romantic, and McLaglen as McChesney, mostly due to his treatment of Gunga Din, is the most unlikeable character, although one detects his soft heart in his love for his elephant Annie. His softness comes through toward the end of the movie, particularly in the very touching, tear-jerking final scene.

Always a gentle and likable actor, Sam Jaffe gives a beautiful performance as Gunga Din, a simple, brave man with a big smile, powerful imagination and lofty dreams. Without much dialogue, Jaffe conveys Gunga Din's soul magnificently.

This is truly the ultimate adventure film, massive in scope, with good acting, rousing scenes, a wonderful musical score, and some beautiful cinematic images. Another one from that remarkable year, 1939. Highly recommended.


Out of all the Princess stories Disney has put out there, Cinderella probably has the most enduring appeal. I can't really say why, but for some reason, generation after generation thrusts her to the top of their lists. As a little girl, I wanted nothing more than to be Cinderella with her glass slipper- it was my absolute favorite costume.

Honestly, I don't think there is any story that more realizes the longings of the human heart than Cinderella. Who has never wanted to run away from the drudgeries of daily life and find someone who sees you as no one else ever had? The story is older than the English language and somehow it still rings true.

As for the characters, if nothing else, Disney can make a wonderful villain. Lady Tremaine is evil to the T, in a wonderfully calculating, not overtly physical way. Her cutting tongue and eyes do the work for her- she doesn't need staffs of lightening to strike fear into your heart. The animal friends tend to grate, especially that idiotic Gus. I would have cheered had he met his fate in Lucifer's jaws. Cinderella herself was no pushover- making some justly catty remarks at times. However, she just lacked the drive to make her entirely sympathetic. Sure, she was nice and fed animals, but what was keeping her at that place? We never know. Even if she only became a maid in another house, at least she's be getting paid and have a shot at respect. It seems the only reason things work out in the end for Cindy is that everything sort of falls to place in her lap. She never works for her dreams that she sings so fondly of.

Which brings me to the music, which is lovely, as ever. Ilene woods has a lovely, rich voice, probably my favorite of any Disney heroine. Some big standards originated here- A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes, So This is Love, Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo...

Cinderella is a wonderful heartfelt story with a ton of musical highlights. While it is lacking in some character development, it does provide some classic villains and excellent voice work. If you are feeling sick at heart, pop it in- it'll warm you up and make you hum Mmm Mmm Good!

Quote of the film:

-Surprise! Surprise! -Duh duh duh- Happy Birthday!


This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not just the story, but the acting is shockingly bad. The dialog sounds like someone reading the news.

This is rated as comedy/drama/romance, it's not of those things ! It's a little action, that's it. There's really NO comedy and drama at all.

If you went to the cinema to see this I feel sorry for you. I would not recommend it at all. Pretty much anything else that you choose to look at will be better. This is pretty much a action/crime movie. The actions scenes sucked, and crime story part of it was very predictable.

If you are not really interested in a good story, or good acting. And you simply want to look at a 'foreign' film for the appeal of being foreign. Then this might be for you.


This show is wonderful. It has some of the best writing I ever seen. It has brilliant directing by Dvid Trainer who also directed another smart television series called BOY MEETS WORLD.

This show is with out a dought one of the greatest. Like THREE'S COMPANY, ROSEANNE, and the famous COSBY SHOW this will be on television for a long time to come.

From it's perfectly crafted jokes to the great performances you would only dream of this is a wonderful show for people who lived in the seventies and the people who didn't. This show appeals to the young and the young at heart. A perfect show.


When I remember seeing the previews for this movie and not really thinking much about it. It was almost one of those movies that when you see the preview, its stunning, and then when it comes out, you hear nothing and totally miss it, and your memory totally doesn't correct the mistake of missing it. Man On Fire was one of those movies. I was curious on a rental one time, and I decided to take it home with me, my precious Blockbuster rental in my hands. I watched it, and witnessed such a beautiful movie. It is like none other...drama and action combined to create something amazingly spectacular. The cinematography done by Tony Scott is extremely well done and unique, unlike another movie. The subtitles can explain something without even listening to the actual voices, and the music is very intriguing for the setting. I got into this movie, and ended up buying it as soon as I could scurry out of the household and head over to Best Buy. I've watched it several times now. Denzel Washington (Creasy) does an amazing job with becoming this lost-minded ex-special forces man with no reason to live. Dakota Fanning (Pita) puts life back into him with her undying love for him right from the start. They bond and become good friends, until she is kidnapped by notorious gangsters part of the brotherhood, La Hermandad. Creasy (Denzel) tells the mother of Dakota Fanning that he will hunt down the killers, fearing that Pita is dead. This is where Creasy really shows the person he can become. He uses his contacts from Pita's kidnapping and Creasy's hospitalization to find one of the men and he begins his pursuit. My favorite line of all, is in this movie, when Christopher Walken tells the AFI agent that 'A man is a work of art, in anything that he does....cooking, whatever. Creasy's art is death...he's about to paint his masterpiece.' He plays a very unique roll of Creasy's old partner and friend. After finally pursuing the brother of 'The Voice,' leader of La Hermandad. Creasy arranges a meeting to trade Pita for himself and The Voice's brother. In the end, Creasy dies from being shot earlier, and his wound getting infected and massive blood loss. It is a very sincere and sad ending, but a great one. I love this movie and recommend it to anyone that is looking for a memorable flick. The story is in depth, everything is explained from beginning to end, and nothing corny at all in any way or manner.


This is a documentary unlike any other. It has so many layers and shows us so much that trying to analyze it all at once is nearly impossible. Documentarian William Greaves shows us the process of film-making from a different perspective. We see the struggles of the actors, the director, the sound crew, and everybody else trying to hang in there and make this film successful. If this was just about a movie being made it would be ordinary. What Greaves does is make it more complex by having a crew film the actors, and then this will be filmed by another crew, only to have another crew film the whole thing. Three cameras, each with a different goal. It has an almost dizzying affect on you but at the same time is exciting. I like the parts where the crew organizes together and discusses what is going on. Even they are somewhat in the dark as to what Greaves is trying to do. Half see this as an experiment while the other half sees it as a chaotic and confusing failure. No matter what side you choose, you can't argue that Greaves doesn't get you involved in this process.


'American Nightmare' is officially tied, in my opinion, with 'It's Pat!' for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.

Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of 'Friends') gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.

Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...

Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as 'voodoo' and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.

No. Really.

This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer 'jump,' the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?

If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent 'American Nightmare' with them.

If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of 'American Nightmare' and hide them in your freezer.


I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.

No thanks.

It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.

The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.

The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.

Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.


When I first saw this movie, it was titled TERROR ON A TRAIN and was the back half of a double feature. Glenn Ford, an armament expert is called on to defuse a hidden bomb on a train loaded with high explosives. The tension is slow and steady; and this black & white film runs only about an hour and twelve minutes. All these years later on TV; the tension and drama has lost most of its impact. This is still a good movie as far as early 50s standards go.

Along with Ford are Anne Vernon and Maurice Denham. The villain/saboteur is played by Victor Maddern.


I just finished watching the 139 min version (widescreen) with some friends and we were blown away. I won't bother repeating what others have said. What the filmmakers do with the concept is unexpected and fun. The huge battle is exhausting. Afterwards we were stunned to find there was still nearly 30 minutes left to go but that didn't keep us from being completely involved and entertained.

There is one thing that nearly ruined it and that was the horrific music/songs. Blues, Country/Folk and Rock Ballads do not belong here and every time they are used we all broke out in laughter. It's hideous. You have been warned but the story and storytelling keeps you grounded.

There are several outstanding moments that make you appreciate the talent behind the camera. There are many uses of silence as well as slow-motion photography that work beautifully. I really wish I could erase the music but alas.

Seek this out. It's fun, it's different and it takes you to places you wouldn't expect and that's very refreshing.


I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream 'NOTICE ME!' over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. 'MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!' (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)

As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.

And I want my 30 minutes back.


An amazing piece of film that was well-conceived and kept me on the edge of my seat. Brilliantly orchestrated in its timing, and the comedy kicked in exactly when the tension needed a release. The acting was generally well-done (the 'Director' should've asked Alec Guinness for acting lessons), and the shot selections were impressive (as in elongating the hall as Billy tries to race to the door in the studio). This movie didn't let up since the opening scene...


I have to be honest, I really had a good time watching She's the Man. Despite it being a typical teenage comedy or if you will the switching of the sexes movie, it had some pretty decent laughs that I think anyone could get. Adults and teens alike would over all enjoy this movie.

Amanda Bynes is your typical rebellious teen who dresses and acts like a guy, and when she is turned down to try out for the boy's soccer team, she decides to take over her brother's appearance to prove herself worthy of being on the boy's soccer team. Of course, love shows itself when she meets another guy who thinks she's her brother. She also has a girl who is chasing after her. Well, the tag line says it all.

This is a fun little teen drama that I think will be remembered for a while. Amanda Bynes did prove something in the film, it's really hard to really act like a guy. :D Well, it's true!

8/10


The 1983 BBC production of 'Jane Eyre' starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This 'Jane Eyre' even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book).

The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in 'Scarlet', and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...)

Some people say that this 'Jane Eyre' is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough 'kissing scenes'. I hate when they make Jane Eyre some 'Hollywood movie' with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include 'crazy, madly in love' scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as 'boring and old-fashioned'. But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book.

I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton!


E! TV is a great channel and Talk Soup is so funny,in a flash you can view the episodes change. We want more funny writings by the best writer ever Stan Evans.. The patron Saint of the mindless masses... He is a truly talented, gifted writer, actor, comic, producer,director, and creative consultant.Anna Nicole loved him , but he was not a $$$$Billionaire so he left him for a Billionaire. Many super stars wanted to make films with the actor Stan Evans, who has a 'Humphrey Bogart' {Clark Gable}acting style. He should make many more movies. Maybe with Stephen Spielberg, or perhaps many other talented producers.We wish him a moment of FAME with a great fortune to gain. Has he produced any mock-U-dramas? or perhaps any docudrama??? A project about Bernie Madhoff would be a great TV movie written by STAN EVANS. How many screenplays has he written?? Is he under $$$$$$$$$$$$billion contract with Disney?? He should earn more than $50 Million... He could also write a TV movie about the late KING OF POP.. Michael Jackson. We want to view a lot more of and by Stan Evans in the movies and on TV. Thank you so very much. Elvis has left the building!!!!!


For years we've been watching every horror film that comes out, from the dull Hollywood retreads like Saw 2, to awful indie releases that are completely unmatchable... we suffer through all of bad films in hopes of finding little gems like 'Dark Remains'.

We managed to catch a screening of this film at Shriekfest 2005. The audience loved it and I believe it ended up winning the award for the best film.

While it may not have the budget or star power of studio films, it packs a serious punch in the creepy atmosphere and scare category. The acting and cinematography are top notch, but it's the direction that makes this film worth the view. The story and characters develop at just the right pace to provide some fantastic scares.

The editing and visual fx are also top notch. And while many horror films don't manage to use music to their benefit, the score for 'Dark Remains' only adds to it's creepiness.

I know the film has shown at a bunch of festivals, but none have been near me, so I can't wait to hear when it'll finally be coming out on DVD. Trust me, even if you're sick of the current state of horror films, give this one a try... you won't regret it!


Out of all the parodies of Star Wars I've seen, this is probably the funniest. Not because of the premise, Star Wars with simple electronics instead of spaceships, but because of how poorly acted it is. This is purposely overacted, and it makes it hilarious, and since everyone knows its purposely overacted, no one complains. The special effects were also purposely as awful as can be, and include a toaster on a visible string that shoots toast, and an egg beater on a string. This short is funny for any fan of Star Wars (which I'm not), or anyone that has 15 minutes to kill. Great short!!

My rating: *** out of ****. 13 mins. Not rated.


THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.

Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die but when you strip a man of his dreams The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****.


Yash Raj films are so funny, whatever works they follow it yet they are called the best production house?

Seeing Bhatt films working they copied the formula, bikini and everything plus casting low actors like Uday and Tanishaa

The film is so horrible it makes you cringe

the jokes are so bad and horny it makes you slap them Uday resembles a gay plus a monkey

Tanishaa resembles an idiot

The director thinks we all are idiots Arjun Sablok takes the audience for granted Music is saving grace Camera-work is good

Uday Chopra hams like an idiot, Tanishaa looks like Kajol in K3g if Kajol was annoying der then Tanishaa is worse the rest are okay


For those that might send me nasty e-mails, shove it. There is a trend in Hollywood where those that create overly-quirky movies are instantly impervious to criticism. Garden State tends to be one of those movies.

Sure, Zach Braff, star of a rather overrated sitcom, surprises people with some talent behind the camera, but that doesn't warrant the kind of praise that a film like this has been receiving. The story is often times too thin and shallow to provide any real insight. People have compared this film to The Graduate, but those type of people are the types that try to oversell independent cinema. Indie films are subject to the same hit and miss mentality that typically hits the studio films, but people seemed to have forgotten that there are far more bad indie films than good ones. Garden State isn't atrocious, but its isn't great.

First off, the film is too quick, resulting in a rather fast reemergence of Large into his former life. After ten years, people tend to act like he never left. Where's the awkwardness? Of course, the situation is always solved by a quick drug tasting scene (which I will say was portrayed rather accurately). The film seem to present a lot of emotional inequities, giving us the idea that the emotion will come up later in a more deeper and more well thought out way. However, it fails to deliver on those fronts, leaving us wondering why the journey to some of his decisions and moments were quickly resolved (like Peter Saarsgard's grave robbing tendencies). It wasn't completely abysmal, but maybe we should stop praising the film as something it isn't.


The film is annoying.

Technically, there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. One could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. Down to earth, man on the street doesn't mean sloppy editing. Unfocused scenes that don't contain important statement should have been deleted. The same goes for making sure that the object's head/hand/others stay in the frame. My 8 years old son knows that by now.

The film is way too long. The main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes, why bother with all the rest. After the interview with James Suckling I pressed the 'stop' button. What a waist of time.

The main theme just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre, commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. The movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more Identity, or terroir. The bigger ones are accused of producing 'internationalized' or 'commercialized' wines. The film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. However, the movie hasn't proved this claim. They look at a couple of sporadic examples, 'tie' some of the big producers (Frescobaldi) with fascism and provided 'interviews' with key people. Well, did all the small producers spent WWII in the resistance? Is it relevant to see that Parker has a thing with Bulldogs? The movie is very manipulative and unconvincing.


Remember Greg the Bunny? It was this show that started on the Independent Film Channel, but got turned into a full blown sitcom on Fox. My cousin and I thought it was pretty funny, beyond the precocious idea of puppets taking on TV-PG material. Puppets Who Kill occurs in a similar universe, where puppets live in the same world as people, and like us, take on jobs and lives of their own. Let's just say if you couldn't handle that, then don't bother watching PWK, as this show is a profile of 4 puppets who fell out of society's good graces through drug abuse, hedonism and violent felonies only to end up in a half-way house. There's plenty of violence, sex, and bad language (so it would never make its way to U.S. Network TV). As if sociopathic puppets weren't enough, the fact that this takes place in Canada makes it even more disturbing (btw, the government pays for this), and I think any American television viewer would demand more demented cable TV fodder like this. I don't know where you can get it in the U.S., beyond extra satellite Tv, but I'd advise you give it a try. Really funny stuff. (It airs on the Comedy Network in Canada)


I was 13 when this mini-series (and its sequel North and South, Book II) first aired. I had already been captivated by the personal interest stories in/around our American Civil War, which is what interested me in watching this made-for-tv program.

I loved it. And now I'm 29 years old and I only love it more. It is full of history, beautiful costuming, real-life characters woven in and out of the lives of fictional characters, all of whom you come to care deeply about. There is intrigue, love, loyalty, betrayal, family, extended family, lust, battles, victory, defeat and reconstruction.

Even though I had the full set of episodes on tapes I recorded back when it originally aired, I purchased the full set of both N&S and N&S II from Columbia House some years ago when they became available. Once every few years I'll take a whole weekend and watch all the installments back to back - and am sad when the last episode rolls to an end, because I find myself wanting to continue watching the story of the lives of these characters.

I cannot recommend this mini-series more highly.


It really was that bad. On a par with the (mercifully!) short-lived 'Dirty Dozen' TV series that starred Ben Murphy and was made at around the same time (also on the cheap in Yugoslavia).

I was embarrassed for the cast members of this film - and for Telly Savalas in particular. He was waaaaaay too old and fat for the role (pushing 70 when he made this garbage), and the reviewer who draws parallels with Telly the Greek in this and John Wayne in 'The Green Berets' pretty much sums it up.

Other reviewers have pointed out some of the many laughable howlers that this crime against celluloid contains, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that I'm amazed that no-one's yet mentioned the ridiculously tiny-looking helmet that Savalas wears on his big, bloated head.

I'm also astonished that this trainwreck of a film has a rating as high as 4.7 here at IMDb.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a '1' right across the board. If you want a good example of why flogging a franchise to death really is a bad idea (especially 20-plus years after the original) - look no further than 'The Dirty Dozen - The Fatal Mission'.

Awful - avoid!!!!


I have a six month old baby at home and time to time she fights sleep really bad. One morning she was having a particular difficult time getting to sleep when the doodle bops theme song came on T.V. She stopped crying almost instantly, and for the rest of the show was content. I sat her in her bouncy seat and watched her kick her legs, swing her arms, and actually laugh at this show. The kept her entertained and happy the entire time. I also got a video of them so that at times when my little one is flustered I have something to calm her. Granted, late at night if she awakes with colic to fuss the doodle bops are not her cup of tea, but they sure do come in handy when I need a little time to do housework,etc. The biggest surprise about the doodle bops is that my child doesn't even like watching T.V. She'd rather be in the floor playing with a toy or with our small toy poodle than watch T.V. yet, the doodle bops have totally captured her attention. I don't know if she will continue to like them in the future but for now she's attached.


One of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.

Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).

This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.

The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..

1 of 10 Molotov cocktails


I have a letter from Ms. Knight, who went to college with my older sister. In it, she tells of the hardships of making this film. She, herself, was pregnant--an interesting conjunction with the movie's plot--and the novice director was unsure, fairly green, and having great difficulties with all the decisions, logistics, etc. They were on the move all the time, and it was a very difficult shoot.

The film, however, with a strong debut for James Caan, remains effective and affecting. It's a great showcase for the talent that Ms. Knight has demonstrated her entire career--on television, in movies and on the stage, where she won the Tony for 'Kennedy's Children.'

This film has aged well.


This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and 'tried and true' but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our 'mistakes' as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl

Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic.

This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a 'person'!


Contains spoilers.

The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum.

Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.

The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10


The chemistry between Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy was incredible. They were thoroughly convincing and genuinely likable in their roles. Imelda Staunton played the conniving Mrs. Sucksby brilliantly. Despite the fact that she was a dastardly opportunist, she somehow managed to have you sympathizing with her in the end. Rupert Evans played the slime-ball gentleman with sheer charm and snark. He was a scene stealer. The story itself was very unique, as was the manner in which it was told. The Victorian England setting featuring two lesbian lead characters was intriguing and delightful. There were some fantastic and unexpected twists and turns that really kept the audience engaged in the story. A wonderful cast and excellent story made this film superb.


Well, 'Cube' (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, 'Cypher' (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as 'Cube' but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

'Nothing' is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), 'Nothing' is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While 'Cube' is a claustrophobic experience and 'Cypher' confusing, 'Nothing' is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since 'Cube'.


This is the kind of movie that I grew up on. It is great family fun, that the kids love and the parents enjoy as well. I wish more films like this were made. It's a great story about a little boy who raises a Bull with his mother and sister, and shows it all the way up to the National Grand Championship, where he wins! Then he's scared that someone's going to barbecue his bull, so he kidnaps it and heads home with it. I was really excited when I first saw this film in the theater and was surprised to see George Strait, Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis in this little film. The music was great with all kinds of huge country names like Willie Nelson and the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who doesn't enjoy this movie, doesn't have any children or never was a kid them self.


The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a 'delightful romance' and that Sanders is 'superb.' Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual,  you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, 'Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three,' but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work  a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.


First, an explanation: Despite my headline, I'm giving this film only 8 stars because overall this is NOT one of the best films ever made. All the criticisms registered here have valid points. Also, be warned that to enjoy the script you really need to appreciate Neil Simon's brilliance with finding the wit within real human banter. He does have a distinctively New York ear for dialogue -- especially dry, Jewish, love-suffused sarcasm -- and if you have trouble accepting sarcasm as an expression of love, then you might have trouble accepting the optimism at the heart of this movie.

So much for warnings. Here's my main point: Walter Matthau is flat-out perfect, even beyond perfect, in this movie. I have never seen him funnier, or more touching for that matter -- because at the same time that he shows us the hilariousness of this character who refuses to give up his Big Star self-image or insufferable attitudes even as his coherence is in decline, he also shows us the more vulnerable, maybe even heartbreakingly scared person inside the grouch. And he only barely shows us that sad part -- it's just enough to really get to you if you happen to be coping with your own father's or husband's mental decline right now (I mention this as a warning), but artistically, it's just enough pathos to give this character the most authentically deep roots I'm seen in possibly any film performance. This is beyond Method acting -- Matthau's performance is exquisite as character work and a pure delight as comic delivery. This is a masterpiece of comic acting.

About Richard Benjamin: I personally find his acting annoying in general, and his work in this movie is no exception -- although he has some fine moments here. ('Chicken is funny....' is one of them.) So if you like him, you should like him here, and if you don't this movie won't change your mind.

About the 1976 Oscars...I agree that Matthau was unfortunate to be up against Nicholson in 'Cuckoo's Nest' that year. It was a killer year for leading-actor competition; if only there were separate Oscars for comedy and drama, then I think the Best Actor Oscars would have gone to Al Pacino for 'Dog Day Afternoon' and to Walter Matthau for 'The Sunshine Boys' -- not to dis Jack's fine work as McMurphy, but I think that Pacino and Matthau were each CLEARLY more masterful and astoundingly effective and downright legendary in their performances than Nicholson was that year. Also, I believe that Burns got the Supporting Actor Oscar more for sentimental reasons than for the quality of his performance -- I mean, he was good in this movie, but not THAT good. (Burns's fine-as-ever but unexceptional-in-itself return to show biz beat Brad Dourif's truly brilliant debut in 'Cuckoo's Nest,' not to mention Chris Sarandon's stunning debut in 'Dog Day Afternoon' -- which I think proves my theory.)

Oscar theories aside, here's my bottom line review: If you like Matthau's comic acting, then see this movie and savor his powerhouse tirades and wonderful grandmother-inspired gestures, fleeting facial expressions and seemingly unscripted asides. (But if you're currently dealing with the pain of watching an old person lose his grip, then be warned that this movie might either be the comic relief you need or a dose of reality too painful to watch right now.)


The movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.

Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated.


As cute and adorable as they are, the story of three singing chipmunks just doesn't seem to have enough meat to it to sustain it for an hour and a half. I thought that the first half hour or so of this movie was well worth watching. It was fun, it had a few laughs in it, it was full of energy. Then it somehow just lost that. I wouldn't even say it faded away, because it seemed quite abrupt to me. The fun was gone; the laughter disappeared. My daughter noticed it, too. She's 4 - she laughed uproariously several times in that first part of the movie, then her laughter stopped. Perhaps it took on too serious a tone - the evil movie producer working the chipmunks to death. Something happened, anyway, and it wasn't for the better.

Of course, the movie is trying to tell the story of how the chipmunks (Alvin, Simon and Theodore) began. Everyone knows the Christmas song. Here we discover how they met Dave and got their start. The movie is updated to the present time, although their real origin is noted by Dave's street address of 1958, which was the year when the animated singing rodents were first created. Jason Lee did a pretty good job as Dave and the chipmunk voices were also pretty good. David Cross as the evil Ian irritated me to be blunt, and I couldn't figure out the point of the character of Claire, played by Cameron Richardson. She added little to the movie. It's a movie you can watch with the kids - it's probably a movie you'd only want to watch with the kids, in fact. It gets a 4/10 from me.


It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.

John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.


How do comments like the one that was the headline by high school girls even make it on this site, this was the stupidest movie I have ever seen, it was ridiculous, how can any moron sit there and say that just because a movie makes you jump it is a good movie, that might be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, I could sneak up behind you and go 'Boo' and it would make you jump, but that does not mean I am qualified to write or direct a movie, not to mention 'they tied everything together at the end' is not a good reason for a movie to be well received. What kind of movie would it be if they didn't tie everything together, I guess that would make it half a movie, not a whole movie. So basically this idiot girl is complimenting them for finishing the movie, well I love how the youth of today hold the media and production companies to such a high standard. No wonder the political system of this country can get away with whatever they want, we have idiots like that coming up in our country, what would happen if this girl actually ends up leading something someday, that is a scary thought. Get a life and go watch a real movie sometime, try Shawshank Redemption or On the Waterfront, or something like that, and don't comment that it was 'boring' after you see it, just use what little brain God gave you to analyze it a little.


When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch!

The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue!

The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess!

I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!

By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.

Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.


A show about an incredibly dumb, man-child and his shrewish hot wife. 99% of the plots revolves around Doug doing something unbelievably stupid and then comes a variable: a) either he hides it from his wife or b) tell his wife, she emasculates him and then it's up to the father-in-law (Arthur: the typecast character from Seinfeld) to aggravate the situation.

And the writers dare to say it was influenced by the 'Honeymooners' (an absolute classic) and that the plots are drawn from real-life situations, unless you live in a cave, you know that's not true.

Anyway, let's just put it this way. If Kevin James had been thin, the show would have got canceled fromm the pilot. If you're 12, or you're fond of fat jokes.. be my guest, watch this show (or any of Kevin James movies for that matter).

I've noticed some posters compare this travesty to much superior shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond -- I'm still wondering how could anyone do that


Someone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after 'Doctor X' & 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum')who is Niemann's assistant.

Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.

Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders.